Yucaipa City Council
April 17, 2023

Agenda Item No. 1

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Benjamin J. Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner - --�f FOR: Special City Council Meeting of April 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development flan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet and averaging over 20,000 square feet, of which 41 of the lots will be age restricted to those over 55, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a combined 12- acre area as part of a "Lot 52" and remainder lot that would include space for vineyards, and 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County. APNs: 0320-161-08, 09, and

28. RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-03, approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and

2. Approve Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 22-1501FDP/TTM 20375), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and

3. Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and

4. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and,

5. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

BACKGROUND:

Surrounding Land Uses:

Area Land Use Designations; Improvement Levels; and existing Land Uses:

Site:

RL-1 (Rural Living, 1-acre minimum
(gross) lot size
IL-3
Vacant
North:

Resource Conservation District — 40
acre minimum (San Bernardino
County)
N/A
Winery/Vineyard and Single Family
Residential
South:

RL-1
IL-3
Vacant
East:

RL-1
IL-3
Vacant
West:

RL-1
IL-3
Single Family Residential
DISCUSSION:

Location and Setting:

The Project site is located on the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, north of Ivy Avenue, directly adjacent to Quartz Street and Crystal Street. The Project site is currently vacant undeveloped land, with an un-named creek located in the southeast corner of the site that connects with Spoor Creek approximately 300 feet south of the Project's southerly property line. There is a notable change of elevation from the southern edge of the site, at 2,920 feet above sea level, to 3,090 along a ridge located near the northern property line. The site is designated Rural Living, one -acre minimum (RL- 1) and the Custom Home (CH) Overlay District and is surrounded by properties also designated RL- 1 within the City of Yucaipa, and is adjacent to unincorporated San Bernardino County to the north.

The most adjacent property to the north is the location of the North Cork Vineyard and Winery, which includes planted vines, a production building for the fermentation of grapes, and an outdoor venue for wine tasting activities and events. The property also includes a single-family residence.

Prior Approvals:

The subject site has previously held land use entitlements for a residential subdivision dating back to September 1989, when the County of San Bernardino approved Tentative Tract 14297 for 33 residential lots of one gross acre or greater in two phases on 39 acres, with an 11.9-acre remainder parcel. After the expiration of that original project, subsequent entitlements were submitted for the same project, with the most recent approvals following the Planning Commission's action of February 19, 2003, to entitle the map. In 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013, the California Legislature passed AB 116, AB 208, AB 333 and SB 1185, respectively, in response to market conditions caused by the recession, which provided automatic State extensions to all active Tentative Maps, Vesting Tentative Maps, and Tentative Parcel Maps. The actions of the State resulted in a cumulative total of seven additional years to the expiration date of an active map. As a result of the previously -approved 36 month administrative extension and subsequent State extensions, the expiration date for TTM 14297 was March 1, 2016. The final two-year time extension for the project was approved at the City Council Meeting of March 28, 2016.

...... .. .. .. .. .. ............ _
TENTATIVE TRACT NO-1429'7 Z
:II i f'i.['i' '•; i'J o4 = .... -V.` -=h" PnA -,.n .�.._._...: _..�� �s . -
r. _r ...
� (AT:~Q41l COPP�� k ' ,�.'•I .s. ., is r �,' "' ....ems..

APPROVE_➢ TENT. MAP u + x rt. 1 �xr soW
cou�rrrwussa �_- r�AF.; r z� ...
� d
"
1 u �
, _ � �.� I —r•M � �-�t�R,c^ �nsun Cums¢ av[ Ni`miFP
�. �e ow. ~� l ••:•.' 'TENTA-nvc IRAG, W. 1+297
TV,
nrrru_axrmn__ '«.:. „� c�mrr of sAr1 aEauneoluo
�( r
Case No. 20-136:
• ' r.;.;;.. - [' + i SngfySK1Cn nfa+
Lt
-::{f_ - f Jam.. i *do •.►"
ice''; _...Ird
It
.. f Jr. a is r i 0
+,.,u -.i r +ram ; ., a =_
"'TJlf��i • �' r O J
J 1 �a
_.__..__._....... ._.. ._ __.....! ....___....... _.. .. __.—....__..._

The proposed Project was reviewed at the regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 2022. As part of the hearing, a total of 23 speakers provided comment, with 3 in favor of the Project and its efforts to support a viticultural industry, and 20 comments received in opposition to the Project over concerns with the proposed unit count and lot sizes, and related impacts that may occur with approval of the Project.

In their discussion, three commissioners identified their concerns with the proposed land use plan and the transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed Project, while others noted that the overall design and approach help meet a variety of goals through the preservation of open space and the establishment of new vineyards. Several Planning Commissioners suggested that additional elements could be incorporated into the Preliminary Development Plan standards in order to help soften the transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed residences, including a larger landscape buffer between Yucaipa Ridge Road and a proposed block wall. It should be noted that some of these suggestions also aligned with staff s general feedback to the developer during the processing of the application. Following a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the Project that ultimately resulted in 3 votes in favor, 4 against, therefore constituting a recommendation for denial of the Project pursuant to Section 83.030210 of the Yucaipa Development Code.

As a result of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of case No. 20-136, the applicant filed an appeal application on August 23, 2022. As part of the appeal, the applicant's representative contended that the Planning Commission went beyond its purview and ultimately did not review the Project from a planning lens, and further asserted that the Commission was uninformed of the Planned Development process. It should be noted that the process requirements were provided in the Planning Commission agenda report and during staffs verbal presentation.

Prior to the Council meeting, City staff reiterated some of the design recommendations from the Planning Commission, and suggested that the applicant explore a concept that would address those key issues.

The appeal was then heard by the City Council at their regular meeting of September 12, 2022. In their discussion, the City Council reiterated some of the design concerns with the proposed Planned Development application, and provided several different recommendations on the design that aligned with the initial feedback provided by the Planning Commission. During applicant rebuttal, the applicant noted that they would be willing to make such changes; however, the City Council ultimately voted to deny the Planned Development as it was proposed and provided feedback to the applicant to consider the recommendations that were provided should they decide to file a new application.

Case No. 22-150 Planning Commission Recommendation:

Following the denial of Case No. 20-136, the Project applicant submitted a revised Planned Development and Tentative Tract Map application that was intended to address the site design comments and recommendations offered by the Planning Commission and City Council. This revised Project, which is further discussed below, was reviewed at the regular Planning Commission hearing of March 15, 2023. During the hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the facts of the Project, including information received during public comment, and ultimately voted 4-3 in favor of recommending the Project for City Council's consideration. The Commission acknowledged the

changes that had been made in response to the former project during their deliberation. Minutes of the meeting are provided as an attachment to this agenda report.

Following the Planning Commission meeting, several concerned residents met with staff to further discuss some questions they had regarding the Project. It should be noted that these residents indicated they were, and remain opposed to the Project, but did offer some suggestions they considered that would better facilitate the transition of the Project. These suggestions included the development of single -story residences to minimize the view of new homes from Yucaipa Ridge Road, and the removal of the proposed monument sign at the site entrance. Following those discussions, the applicant agreed to remove the monument sign in favor of additional landscaping and now proposes single story residences at the most western lots of the development.

Following the Planning Commission hearing, staff has also developed and presented to the developer three additional Conditions of Approval that will better memorialize the restrictions for the age -restricted lots and the agricultural land area.

Proiect Design and Description:

Preliminary Development Plan:

Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-I, which permits the development of one single family unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan and would therefore be permitted to accommodate up to 52 single family lots. Instead of proposing a project that adheres to those existing development standards, the Project proposal utilizes the Planned Development Review process set forth in Article 2, Planned Development Review (Section 83.030205 et seq.) of Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Development Code, which creates a process for an applicant to propose alternate development standards that, while inconsistent with the existing underlying development standards, may be justified based on specific findings. The Planned Development Review process allows an applicant to propose new development standards that would be applicable to a site, in order to provide more flexibility in development based on the site's characteristics.

Artist rendering of Project at Yucaipa Ridge Road and Crystal Street (without sign) Pursuant to these provisions, the Project includes a Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP") that would create new development standards which, if approved, would replace the existing RL-1 standards otherwise applicable to the site, while maintaining the underlying density. As proposed,

these new development standards are inconsistent with the underlying RL-1 development standards and does not comply with the objective design standards of the RL-1 and Custom Home Overlay.

However, the Planned Development process is being used to provide "[m]odifications to the development standards [that] include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage" as identified by the Project applicant to accomplish additional site design flexibility and specific development standards to consolidate the residential development to design around the existing site conditions including topography. The new development standards form the basis for the applicant's ability to develop the residential uses and agricultural uses as set forth in TTM 20375/Final Development Plan. 'R Area {; i
50' Ufi1rN)Y El1N1Yfl[y � f t, SAreiA—
I Multipupcaa Trail
^ Mai rIm KNO by C i y of
`pat
1 .4 Area B
t. I i e
s 7 I+ R rtf �YAreaBl�
lop
F Area A
- j
Area B le IPI.�
Proposed Land Ilse Plan to be subject to nII proposed standards

Consistent with the General Plan designation of RL-1, which allows up to 52 residential lots on the subject site, the PDP provisions proposed would allow the development of 51 single family lots, as well as one additional lot that will consist of only open space and a vineyard or similar agricultural use. The proposed PDP includes four separate planning areas that would govern the development:

Planning Area A, designated as Agriculture, is the proposed 12 acres for the agricultural planting area; Planning Area B, designated as Low Residential, encompasses 27 acres and would permit the 51 single family residences, of which 41 would be restricted to residents 55 years old or greater; and Planning Area C that would provide 13 acres of Open Space. Planning Area B features tailored development standards for the area, including 20,000 square foot lots along the periphery of the site, and smaller 12,000 square foot lots accessed by an internal cul-de-sac. Additionally, the age restriction for the development shall comply with all applicable requirements of state law, including any implementation of any elements to best ensure enforceability of these age -restricted covenants.

Planned Development applications require the approval of a PDP by the City Council, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, to create the appropriate development standards, and the submittal of a Final Development Plan ("FDP") to formally entitle a specific project. In order for the City Council to approve the Project adopting these new development standards, the City Council must make all of the following findings set forth in Section 83.030220 of the Development Code:
a) The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan and any other applicable plan.
b) The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed and the site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, loading areas, landscaping, and other features required.
c) The site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide improvements to accommodate the anticipated requirements of the proposed development.
d) Adequate public services and facilities exist, or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development, and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of such public services to properties in the vicinity to be a detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. e) The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property or the permitted use thereof and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area. f) The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including, but not limited to, flood, seismic, fire, and slope hazards.
g) The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards. h) If the development proposes to intermix residential and commercial uses, whether done in a vertical or a horizontal manner, the residential use is designed in such a way that it is buffered from the commercial use and is provided sufficient amenities to create a comfortable and healthy residential environment and to provide a positive quality of life for

the residents. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, private open space, private or separated entrances, landscaping, etc.

Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the purpose of the Planned Development Review process is "to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan, but instead is intended to "provide(s) a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations" through the creation of new standards that would then apply, subject to Council approval. Based on the topographical elements of the site, in conjunction with the City's Hillside Overlay District, the approach contemplated by this Planned Development application results in consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with access requirements listed in the Development Code. These factors may be considered along with all other evidence, written and oral, presented to the City Council for its consideration, in order to determine if the required findings under Development Code Section 83.030220 may be made. It should be noted that other Planned Developments within the RL-I Land Use District have been implemented in the City's past and were developed to accomplish many of the same conceptual goals that is proposed with this Project. These projects are discussed in the Processing and Procedural section of this agenda report.
ow
Artist rendering of Project at Yucaipa Ridge Road
Tentative Tract Map/Final Development Plan:

Along with the PDP, the proposed Project includes an FDP exhibit to implement the provisions of the PDP, which is provided through Tentative Tract Map ("TTM") No. 20375. The TTM has the following elements: The Planned Development review process (Section 83.030225) permits the concurrent review of a subdivision with a PDP, provided separate application, review, and findings shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the City's Development Code. As such, approval of the PDP is required first to establish the applicable development standards of the FDP.

In order to approve TTM 20375/FDP, the City Council must first approve the PDP. Approval of TTM 20375/FDP requires that the City make all of the findings required under Development Code Section 83.030220 (as listed above), and also all required findings in accordance Government Code

Section 66474 and Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Development Code. Proposed findings for TTM 20375/FDP are included as an attachment to this Staff Report. - �, — e — RL-� 9lxCi_£ FAIAILY PEErt£xr nL ra1y` -'1-1 'f - RL-1 SNGIE F—I REyp AL- -
L
I ILn I -i;r.
r..
it•'• i': Fr I.— —�:. FT ------A — ---- uVl..rxEi•R' I'� \ 1 -i u Xi y �
Gra `w Fr _ J Fr 'T \ 1
.evi�:`�Er Y :Rr I....'.Fr •:rr ..-----�--'+ \'.
.. ...... .... i nil: .:. Fr ....�.
�0.1� 59 r'r II - -•... Fr :.... R ..: R' 'i=ErNxCER PaRCa a r c i IL LTM
.., •. ... '• �T:�5 II �• Ili � rr � _ `' e - Fr I � " I crw ­ILsR<a r
E_LE
err n li_ —1 61-
�' %. ..•. Rr lil ili
- 1F - 1 l
W !r
TTM20375,:..

Single Family Development:

The TTM includes 51 single family residential lots ranging from 12,000 square feet in size within the interior cul-de-sac, and 20,000 square feet for the standard residential lots along the primary streets, which have been arranged around the extension of Crystal Street that would loop around back to Yucaipa Ridge Road on Quartz Street.

Lot 52:

An area designated as "Lot 52" is proposed to correspond to Planning Areas A of the PDP, and would contain the future agriculture use and drainage area for the subdivision along Yucaipa Ridge Road. The PDP specifies that no commercial or residential activities which would result in traffic - related daily trips will occur on this lot, and the ultimate Tract Map and Conditions of Approval will include these restrictions.

Remainder Lot:

An area designated as a "Remainder Lot" is proposed to correspond to Planning Areas A and C of the PDP, and would therefore include the open space elements of the Project and the future agriculture use directly north of the residential subdivision. The proposed agricultural operations would be accessed from Yucaipa Ridge Road. The PDP specifies that no commercial or residential activities which would result in daily trips will occur on this lot, and the ultimate Tract Map and Conditions of Approval will include these restrictions.

Lettered Lots/Drainaize:

The site has been designed to maintain historic flows, and includes measures that will ensure that the Project complies with the onsite water retention and City's water quality requirements. Three (3) lettered lots are included, with two of them designed to support landscaped detention basins that would accommodate water quality requirements and would integrate to Lot 52. The third letter lot is the open natural space for the existing drainage channel along the southeastern edge of the site.

Circulation:

The Project site is located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed. The development of the site would be responsible for completing the Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements fronting the Project, including curb and gutter, and would include a multipurpose trail. Adjacent to the right of way of Yucaipa Ridge Road will include "Lot 52" that will include key site drainage elements including detention basins which have been designed as a 30-foot-wide landscaped stream bed, as well as vineyard plantings. Between the lot and the proposed residential lots will also include a decorative block wall. — 4���a.LL�4W��
tidm�sa�n wsr'sy
14Mrt}+A
G�rSaiYYW LY�Ti�M1 �r�vu �H �� r� �• ��� ImlRill�'.

1 �r 'I'll
1 y'
owl
i<: nnh M
W -emoted
Aj EXHIBIT 13 — YUCAIPA RIDGE ROAD STREET SECTION
All the proposed residences of the Project would receive access from the internal streets that are proposed, which would connect to Yucaipa Ridge Road via Quartz Street and Crystal Street. The proposed Project roadway design provides 50 feet of public right of way, and consists of streets measuring 36 feet (curb -to -curb) in width, and a 7-foot-wide landscaped drainage swale proposed to carry the rain runoff to the proposed detention basins. The street design also includes a decomposed granite multipurpose trail within a 7-foot easement into the residential lots, which will include split rail fencing provided along the streets to delineate the trail location.

Ir
1hlr�►�i► 1 Ra Krona `
i7 0
i
YI���1►f�11� i .

STRJMT
In addition to these trails along the street network, an additional trail is provided north of the residential area. The trail design was developed with input from the City's Engineering Division, and the conceptual trail alignment reviewed at the June 7, 2022, Trails & Open Space Committee Meeting. The Committee did not have any comments and found that this element of the Project was consistent with the General Plan Multi -use Trails Map.

SLOPE PLANTING
4 I

B YPIDE DECOMPOSED GRANITE MULTI -PURPOSE TRAIL
Y RUSTIC WOOD RAR FENCING ALdHGON BOTH SIDES

LIMIT OF VVORK
Further, the Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits, with these improvements conditioned to occur entirely within the subject site.

Project Phash
Pursuant to the TTM and PDP exhibits, the recordation and bonding of improvements for Tract 20375 will occur in a single phase. Individual homes are expected to be built out to meet market demand, but completed as part of an overall development instead of a "lot sales" approach. The vineyards are expected to be planted in the 2023 spring or fall season.

General Plan and Development Code:

The Project proposes a development that is not consistent with the existing Citywide objective standards but may be permitted through the PDP process, provided that the findings for approval are made by the City Council. The Project consists of a PDP that establishes development standards intended to support the City's General Plan, which would replace the development standards otherwise applicable to RL-1 land use designation. These include the following policies:
• CDL-1.1 Places to Live. Provide sites for a range of housing types, locations, and densities in a variety of neighborhood settings equipped with amenities that support a high quality of life.
• CDL-10.1 Development Review. Implement and adhere to development review procedures and design guidelines in the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code that advance the visual quality of the community.
• HN-2.1 Balanced Housing Stock. Designate adequate land for a broad range of types of housing, including single-family attached and detached, multiple -family housing, and mixed uses located in accordance with the land use and community design element. • HN-3.3 Housing Incentives. Facilitate the development of market rate and affordable housing through regulatory incentives (e.g., density bonus), permit processing (e.g., planned development), and other incentives, where feasible and appropriate.

It should be noted that the PDP also provides the required analysis by the applicant of the City's General Plan to demonstrate the approach made by the PDP will provide consistency with the City's General Plan. The nature of the Planned Development procedures is to create specific standards that would replace existing standards that would apply to the subject site, and therefore the Project does not currently comply with the objective standards for the district. As such, approval of the FDP is first subject to Council making the determination that the development standards listed in the PDP are appropriate based on findings listed in Section 83.030220 of the Development Code, as outlined above, which would then establish the standards applicable to the FDP. The proposed PDP for the Serrano Estates Project has the following Development Standards that would pertain to the Residential Development, rather than the development standards of the underlying RL-1 land use designation:

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS —PLANNING AREA R— LOW RESIDENTIAL

PERMITTED
USES
The following uses may be permitted:

Single family dwelling unit
Small residential care facility
Small family daycare home
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Animal Raising (pursuant to Development Coae §

84.0320)
Accessory uses as specified by Yucaipa
Development Code § 84_0510, 84.0550, 84D56-0,
and 84.0570
The folIowing uses are prohibited:

All uses not stated as "permitted uses"

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Area:
12,000 Square Feet
Minimum Lot Width:
75' (at front bidg. setback line)
Minimum Lot Depth
120'
Minimum Street Frontage:
50'
Minimum Habitable Floor -Area:
2,200 sq. ft.

Front 5etbackto Residence:
25' minimum (from property line)
Rear Setback:
20' minimum
Side Setback (Interior):
10' and 5' minimum
Side Setback (Street Side):
15' minimum (from property line)
Height:
35' maximum (2.5 stories)
Building Coverage (max. percent):
4Wo
Lot Coverage (max_ percent).
50yQ
Required Parking Spaces:

Z.0 spares wjin enclosed garage
Minimum Garage Area:
400 square feet with two (2) vehicle capacity
Minimum Driveway Length:
25' (frorr garage doorto multipurpose trail)
Standard Driveway Stall Dimension:
9' x 20' (18' x 20' fnr 2 spaces)

Processing and Procedural Actions:

Notices of the Project were sent to all surrounding property owners within a 1,300-foot radius of the Project site, and a variety of responses were received by neighbors to the Project site with concerns about the Project and the proposed reduction of the lot sizes identified in the PDP.

Many of the comments and concerns are addressed with the Initial Study prepared for the Project, with responses summarized by topic below. The comments received are also included as an attachment to this agenda report.

Lot Sizes: Many of the comments received indicated concerns with the proposed lot sizes and included requests that lots be either half an acre or be maintained at one acre. As part of these requests, commenters noted the potential incompatibility of the smaller lots as well as the current land use designation for the site. Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-1 which permits one unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan and has a theoretical capacity of 52 single family lots. It should be noted that gross density refers to the overall parcel area that includes right of way areas, rather than just the individual parcel boundary and therefore does not require each individual lot to measure 43,560 square feet.

The proposed Project includes a PDP and associated FDP/TTM that is designed to implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development process "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The Planned Development process specifically allows for modified standards to meet the site's needs. Based on the topographical elements of the site, in conjunction with the City's Hillside Overlay District, the applicant is proposing to use the Planned Development process and has created a land use design that results in the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site to avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with other elements listed in the Development Code.

However, as the Planned Development approach is to establish new development standards for a site rather than to comply with the current objective standards listed in the Development Code, the City Council is ultimately responsible for determining if the policy set forth by the PDP is appropriate once a recommendation has been provided by the Planning Commission. With this consideration, the City Council may amend in whole or in part the standards listed in the PDP to best suit the requirements of the General Plan. Further, the Yucaipa General Plan states "When implementing Yucaipa's General Plan, it is important to note that it addresses multiple objectives through its goals and policies. Adherence to an individual goal or policy is not intended to preclude achievement of other goals and policies. Implementing goals and policies often requires balancing priorities at a particular time or for particular circumstances and decisions. The City Council has final discretion over how to balance adherence to goals and policies when multiple ones affect a single decision." As such, Council may provide direction to achieve the rural and compatible neighborhood design that supports the existing neighborhood that surrounds the Project.

In an effort to address concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, the Project has been designed around the internal street network and none of the proposed residences would be located directly along Yucaipa Ridge Road. This approach intends to insulate the neighborhood somewhat

from the subdivision rather than having the residential frontage directly across the street from existing homes. As part of the processing for Case No. 20-136, both the Planning Commission and City Council had recommended increasing the width of the buffer and additional landscape buffering adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, which is proposed with the current subdivision design.

In addition, all access points would connect to existing intersections along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which would preclude any traffic from directly facing an existing residence.

One Lot on One Acre vs. Planned Development: Many public comments were received with concerns that the RL-1 only allows for a single residence on a single acre, as identified in the summary above, and that the application of the Planned Development procedures is a novel approach that should not be applicable. However, it is worthwhile to note that Planned Developments have been approved and developed throughout different periods of the City's history.

In particular, the City has several different RL-1 neighborhoods, including those known for being some of Yucaipa's most upscale custom home neighborhoods, that had been developed with the lot area transfer provisions permitted by that process. Three noteworthy neighborhoods, two of which are located in the North Bench, that had used the Planned Development concept includes the Stanley Ranch neighborhood adjacent to Grape Street, the Mountain Gate development located off of Highway 38, and the Reserve at Crafton located near Sand Canyon Road. All three of these neighborhoods, with lots from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet, feature attractive homes that currently command prices from $700,000 to over $1,000,000, and were developed with lots that are less than an acre. Details of these various projects are shown below to give context of the Planned Development approach to consolidate lot sizes for the deliberate purpose of managing different lot constraints.

Stanley Ranch: This neighborhood, located in the RL-1 District, was subdivided by Tract 13831 with the first phase of the map officially recorded in 1990. The lots range from approximately 5 acres along the hillside areas, to 20,000 square feet. Additionally, the Composite Development Plan on file includes the note "Because of the lot size transfer that has occurred within this subdivision, all lots may not be further subdivided in the future." Similar provisions would apply to the Serrano Estates project, and the proposed vineyard areas would not be permitted by the PDP nor the City to allow future residential uses on those areas.

.Ak
1 Stanley Ranch Neighborhood
f
RL-1 I 'i
Mountain Gate: This neighborhood, currently designated as the PD District but historically was designated as RL-10 (10 acre minimum) prior to City incorporation, was subdivided by Tract 14429 and officially recorded in 2005. The lots are generally 20,000 square feet in size, and includes a large open space area owned by the Crafton Hills Conservancy and the state of California.

Mountain Gate Neighborhood
The Reserve at Crafton: This neighborhood is designated as RL-1 and was subdivided by Tract 12222. The map officially recorded in 1992 and the project was later developed in the later 2000s.

The lots are generally 10,000 square feet in size, and it includes a pool, tennis court and clubhouse common feature.
e S Tennessee 3t Tenne55ae St Tennessee 5t
Reserve at Crafton Neighborhood

Traffic Impacts: To support the analysis of the Project, a Transportation Study Screening Assessment, dated May 26, 2022, was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc. The City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines specify that a transportation impact study with level of service (LOS) analysis should be based on one or more of the following criteria:
• When the project AM or PM peak hour trip generation is 100 or more trips. • Projects that will add 51 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hour to any intersection.
• When determined by the City Engineer that existing or proposed traffic conditions in the project vicinity have unique characteristics that warrant evaluation.

Based on the previously proposed development consisting of 51 single family dwellings proposed, 16 of which would have been age restricted for seniors, the Project would not have resulted in enough traffic that would trigger these review requirements and would have been within the capacity for the adjoining existing roadways. Many of the comments received noted concerns with the introduction of 399 daily trips that was identified by the Transportation Study Screening Assessment. However, this number of trips amounts to 29 trips during the AM peak hour and 38 trips during the PM peak hour, or less than one car per minute, and is less traffic than what is currently generated by the existing neighborhood. The Project has since been amended to feature 41 age -restricted lots, which further reduce the average daily trips and the peak hour traffic assumptions provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.

Further, no complaints are on file from the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming program regarding congestion or other traffic -related issues that would indicate that the roadway LOS is deficient.

Juniper Street Access: A comment letter was received noting that it was difficult to make a left turn from Juniper towards the southbound direction of Bryant Street, which would be one of the primary exit routes from the development to other parts of the City. To address this concern, a Condition of Approval has been added that requires a traffic analysis to provide a stop sign/traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Bryant Street and Juniper. If potential improvements are determined to be necessary, improvement plans and construction/bonding requirements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the subdivision, and the required improvements shall be constructed prior to the occupancy of individual residences within the Project.

Sewer Availability/Connections: Several different comments noted that the existing area does not feature existing sewer lines and therefore had concerns about the introduction of new septic tanks.

As noted in the preliminary service evaluation for the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) and the PDP, the proposed Project would be required to extend sewer lines from Bryant Street to serve the development. An exhibit of this extension is provided below. Additional comments were received with concerns that existing properties would be required to connect to the proposed sewer line extension. Approval of the proposed PDP would not require other properties to connect to this infrastructure as YVWD does not currently require existing homes to connect to their sewer infrastructure.

Keeping of Large Animals: Several comments were received regarding concerns that the proposed Project would not permit the keeping of large animals such as horses and cattle. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, the keeping of large animals are permitted on lots greater than 20,000 square feet. The site does not currently feature livestock or other large animals and the owner is not obligated to include them; other one -acre subdivisions, such as Tract 16060 and Parcel Map 16073 along Yucaipa Ridge Road and Holly Avenue, do not feature any livestock raising. However, the Project would not impact others from having large animals, and a condition of approval for the Project requires the disclosure that "all parcels may be located within 1,320 feet of existing accessory animal raising uses which existed prior to the creation of this subdivision" and that such uses will be protected from nuisance complaints pursuant to the City Development Code, Section

84.0560, entitled "Accessory Animal Raising".

Water Availability: Various comments referred to the ongoing drought impacting the southwest area of the Country and noted concerns with approving development considering these issues. As part of the Project application, the applicant has obtained a letter from YVWD noting that they would be able to accommodate the proposed development, and the PDP includes details on the necessary connections to be made for water and sewer infrastructure. It should be noted that prior infrastructure improvements have been developed to increase the potable water storage capabilities to meet the demand of future residents and businesses based on the City's General Plan. This includes the Wilson II and III Basins, and Wildwood Basins, that have been specifically designed to increase stormwater retention capability, increase groundwater recharge, and improve downstream water quality. These projects, along with other community investments made through various partners with the City, have increased the City's groundwater supply to create a more sustainable

water supply for the future. These efforts have been included into the Yucaipa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Management Plan (YSGSMA) that was adopted by the City Council at their regular meeting of January 10, 2022, and is under review with the California Department of Water Resources. The YSGSP identified that the Plan Area is not currently experiencing undesirable results with regard to the chronic lowering of groundwater elevations, reduction of groundwater in storage, land subsidence and depletion of surface water as a result of groundwater production from the principal aquifer, and the basin is not projected to experience undesirable results over the 50-year planning and implementation horizon.

In addition, newer residential development is subject to both Title 24 energy standards and the City's Water Conservation Ordinance, which includes provisions regarding water fixtures, such as faucets and toilets, and landscaping, such as plant selection and irrigation design, to reduce the water usage relative to older homes. Further, smaller residential lots typically result in less water usage per capita than larger lots, as the larger lots have larger yards that ultimately use more potable water. As an additional element, vineyards require less water than other agricultural crops and, combined with the overall development, would use comparable amount of water relative to a standard RL-1 development. Further, as the state has maintained its housing development goals, it has not permitted any cities to declare a moratorium on new development because of the drought.

Based on the initial Preliminary Service Evaluation from YVWD, recycled water was not specified as a required connection. Dual plumbing for potable and recycled water will be required, and recycled water connections may be also conditioned in a Development Agreement with YVWD.

Electricity Impacts: A comment was received regarding concerns on the capacity of the electrical grid and its ability to support the proposed Project. The Project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen), which require new buildings to include materials and design elements that increase building system efficiencies, such as improved HVAC system, electrical equipment improvements such as LED lighting, and other related improvements. In addition, the new residences would be required to include solar panels.

Earthquake Risk/Trenching: Some comments referenced concerns with nearby earthquakes faults and the impacts may occur to the proposed residences. To support the analysis of the Project, responses have been provided by the applicant, dated July 8, 2022, and LOR Geotechnical Report dated June 15, 2022, in response to a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated November 22, 2005, for the subject site. As part of the current Project review, LOR Geotechnical notes that the current PDP/TTM plan generally incorporates the recommendations that had been previously presented including their recommended restricted use zone (R.U.Z.) along the northern portion of the site which would be avoided with the proposed PDP configuration. The applicant had indicated that they are currently updating their geotechnical documents, including the preparation of a current fault study, to ensure compliance with today's codes and requirements that is a requirement consistent with a uniformly applicable policy related to the final engineering effort for future residential building permits. Additional concerns noted the backfill of trenches that was completed as part of prior geotechnical investigations, which will be assessed as part of the required documentation for building permits, and compaction reports will be required as part of the site grading process and prior to the construction of building foundations. Through the review process, the applicant noted to staff that this updated study was to be provided before the City Council meeting; this report has not yet been received.

Fire Risk: A variety of commenters noted the vegetation around the site and the associated risks that may result from wildfires as well as available access should residents need to evacuate. The Project site is located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed. The development of the site would be responsible for completing the Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb and gutter, and would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way street. Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does not designate Yucaipa Ridge Road as a local evacuation route, but does include Bryant Street as a Local Evacuation Route, which can be accessed from Azurite Street and Topaz Street. Further, the Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits.

The Project site is also located approximately 2.19 miles, via paved roadways, to Yucaipa Fire Station #1 at 11416 Bryant Street, Yucaipa, CA 92399. Due to the proximity to the more rural areas of Yucaipa and the neighboring unincorporated community of Oak Glen, this fire station is equipped with Paramedic Engine 551, Reserve Engine 551A, and CAL FIRE Engines 3551 & 3569, and also includes a heliopad and quick response rescue equipment to aid in wildland fire response. Additional firecrews associated with the Mill Creek Hotshots are also located at the Mill Creek Ranger Station that is located at 34701 Mill Creek Rd, Mentone, CA 92359, approximately

1.1 miles away via paved roadways.

The Project will be required to adhere to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Documentation from the Project applicant notes that the existing hydrants adjacent to the site provide a flow rate of 850 gallons per minute, which exceeds the Code requirement of 500; however, it should be noted that several public comments received noted that the area has limited water pressure. As a standard Condition of Approval, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision prior to the issuance of building permits.

The water supply and pressure will need to meet code requirements before any combustible materials (lumber) is provided to the site, and the applicant will be required to make any such improvements to achieve that pressure.

Utility Pole Relocation: One comment was received with a request that the developer relocate the utility poles currently along the west side of Yucaipa Ridge Road to be instead along the Project's frontage. The City of Yucaipa's Development Code includes provisions where the undergrounding of utilities is required but does not include provisions to relocate equipment that would not otherwise be impacted by the Development's improvements to their street frontage.

Habitat Impacts: To support the analysis of the Project, a Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation, dated June 2022, was prepared by Jennings Environmental. In addition, prior biological research and surveys had been completed on the site as part of the environmental review efforts associated with TTM 14297. In all cases, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; wetlands; and wildlife corridors were discovered onsite. Further, various protocol surveys/trappings for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat have been completed within the North Bench area over the past several decades and each survey has been negative. The Project site does contain trees and shrubs that would be removed as part of the

mass grading activities for the site, and therefore could have a potential impact on nesting birds if they are present on the Project site at the time of grading and construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-1 from the Initial Study would require a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site and includes appropriate provisions consistent with law.

Blue Line Stream Impacts: A drainage feature is located along the southeastern edge of the site and is considered as a jurisdictional feature under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, with an estimated jurisdictional area encompassing 0.4 acres of the site. However, the PDP and TTM for the Project has been designed to specifically avoid any development within or adjacent to this jurisdictional feature, and instead would designate this area as natural Open Space in perpetuity.

This requirement is also reflected in the Project's Conditions of Approval.

Yucaipa Ridge Road Right of Way: A request was made by an adjoining property owner to have the northern Right of Way alignment for Yucaipa Ridge Road shift towards the east to better connect to an existing access easement and paved private drive for the properties to the north, which is shown below:

V9
.• r _ r e4 qL pa vement j
-q1J, wide
is m%
Neighboring request to align Yucaipa Ridge Road ROW to existing easement Development Review Committee:

The City Development Review Committee reviewed the Serrano Estates Project (Case No. 20-136) on August 4, 2022, which discussed the Project's draft Conditions of Approval with the applicant's representative. The representative noted that they would complete the stop sign improvements along Yucaipa Ridge Road and will be working to address the concerns on the Juniper/Bryant Street intersection. Key revisions, which are also reflected in the proposed Conditions of Approval,

includes details such as the 40 ft ROW along the northern end of Yucaipa Ridge Road, and the proposed stop control at the Yucaipa Ridge Road intersections.

Environmental Review:

The Initial Study prepared for the initial Serrano Estates proposal, which was made available for comment for 20 days beginning on July 15, 2022, and ending on August 4, 20221, considers the potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the Project. Based upon the analysis conducted by staff, all available evidence indicated that any adverse impacts that could occur are at a less -than -significant level, and consequently, staff had recommended the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) if the City Council were to ultimately approve the Project. As noted previously, the initial Serrano Estates Project was denied and a new proposal was developed that was intended to address the site design shortcomings identified during those hearings. An Additional Analysis (AA) on the previously -developed MND was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in response to Project design revisions that have been made following the public hearing process for Case No. 20-138 and that are now included as part of Case No. 22-150. The AA provides additional information and analyses that merely clarifies or amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Draft MND after it was circulated for public comment in July, 2022 to best account for the current proposal. As such, recirculation is not required pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines; however, this information is being provided for the benefit of public review and disclosure and is included as part of the overall MND adoption process, should Council approve the Project.

The Mitigation measures reflect the comments received through tribal consultation as part of SB 18/AB52, as well as the standard protocols regarding biological resources and a paleontological resource evaluation. Other elements of the Project would be governed by uniformly applicable policy, including adherence with the Building Code and SCAQMD rules. No comments were received specifically on the Initial Study during the public review process by local, regional or state agencies, or by members of the public, though a variety of public comment letters were provided with concerns over the Project. These responses are included above as part of the Project processing section.

Alternatively, the City Council can find that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines if the Planned Development is denied. These sections state that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

CONCLUSION:

If approved, the proposed Preliminary Development Plan will establish a land use plan and development standards for a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 51 lots, including 41 that will be age restricted, and provides additional area for natural open space and vineyards on a 52-acre site along Yucaipa Ridge Road. As part of the Project, a Final Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 has been submitted to entitle the subject site in a design that is consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan.
1 Initial Study was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review during the same period.

The City's Development Code includes procedures for Planned Development applications, and notes that its purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." As a result, the proposed development does not meet the City's objective design standards, including lot dimensions and setbacks, until a PDP has been is approved that establishes new standards applicable to the site. The proposed standards of this PDP have been developed by the applicant, based on their application and letter of intent, to address the existing topographical challenges for the site, and includes "[m]odifications to the development standards [that] include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage" to accomplish additional site design flexibility. The Planned Development process includes required findings of approval that are to be met in order to approve the Project. The Planning Commission has recommended the Project, and the City Council can make any necessary revisions to the draft findings and Planned Development standard to further support the discussion and decision on the Project as part of the Project record.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Based on a total number of 51 residential units on 27 net acres, the Project can be expected to generate $1,207,229.73 in Development Impact Fees, using the current 2022 fee schedule, as follows:

Drainage Facilities:
$401,745.42
Traffic Facilities:
$532,144.20
Public Facilities:
$73,675.62
Fire Facilities:
$46,726.71
Park Facilities:
$152,937.78
TOTAL:
$19207,229.73
Fees collected by other agencies, such as Yucaipa Valley Water District and Yucaipa Calimesa School District, are in addition to this total.

Attachments: Preliminary Development Plan Findings for Approval Tentative Tract Map Findings for Approval
Land Use District & Location Map
Resolution 202M7 for Approval
Conditions of Approval
August 17, 2022, Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2022, City Council Minutes
March 15, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes (Draft)
Comment Letters Received
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Additional Analysis to the MND
Environmental Initial Study
Project Plans
Approved by:

FINDINGS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL

1. The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the current land use district designation is Rural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size that would permit up to 52 single family lots. The proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards to permit the approval of 51 single family lots and one additional lot for vineyards and permanent open space. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan but works to provide development standards intended to achieve different design goals, including the preservation of natural open space, and provide areas for viticulture.

2. The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed through the proposed Preliminary Development Plan, which leverages the areas of the site that has limited topographical constraints to accommodate the residential capacity and preserves areas with greater slopes or naturalized drainage channels to remain as open space. The design also provides an opportunity for agrarian activities along visible areas intended to support a more rural community appearance and the local viticultural industry. As part of the Preliminary Development Plan, 51 single family homes is proposed within the 52 acre site, and development standards are included to accommodate 12,000 or greater square foot lots that includes design requirements pertaining to yards, setbacks, and walls and fences, while also establishing landscape buffers between the proposed vineyard and from the adjoining neighborhood along Yucaipa Ridge Road. In addition, the site has been arranged with larger lots along the Crystal Street/Quartz Street loop to best integrate with the existing neighborhood along Yucaipa Ridge Road.

3. The site for the proposed development has adequate access from Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed, and relevant condition of approval are required for the Project, including the completion of Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb, gutter, and a multipurpose trail, as well as the completion of additional improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, as part of the consideration on the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide the necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development.

The Project would further access Bryant Street, the primary thoroughfare, from Azurite Street and Topaz Street which are developed as local streets.

4. Adequate public services and facilities will be provided as a condition of development plan approval to serve the proposed development and is identified in Section 4 of the Preliminary Development Plan. This includes the extension of the sewer line from Bryant Street and improvements to potable water service, to support the future development. In addition, these improvements consider the development surrounding the site, and through the permit review process with the utility companies will ensure that the development will not result in a reduction of such public services to the surrounding properties.

5. The proposed development has been designed to minimize any adverse effects on surrounding property by creating a land use design that can help buffer the differing lot sizes of proposed development (greater than a quarter (net) acre) to the existing development (one acre gross) through a landscaped basin along Yucaipa Ridge Road, and locating the permitted residential capacity towards interior streets to the Project. The proposed land uses for the site include single family residences and land for agrarian purposes, which will provide compatibility between land use activities of the surrounding area.

6. The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the Project site including:
• Flood: The Preliminary Development Plan proposes a land use plan that would avoid any development in drainage areas that may pose a flood risk and would instead preserve the existing drainage channels that feed towards Spoor Creek as natural open space.
• Seismic hazards: The subject site is located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone boundary, and prior geotechnical studies completed for the site identify potential fault zone risks along the northern portion of the site. The Preliminary Development Plan would preserve such areas as open space, including natural open space and vineyards, in lieu of residential development. In addition, the proposed residential development would be subject to the California Building Code, and additional geotechnical studies will be completed as part of the permit process to provide for the structural design requirements for the new residences.
• Fire: Risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision, and the development would be subject to any additional water improvements to meet the code requirements for flow. Other key elements supported by the Project is a roadway design that meets the California Fire Code (CFC), including a maximum 12% grade, all weather roadway design capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets. General Plan Policy S-1.8, Natural Topography, note that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability.
• Slope hazards: The Preliminary Development Plan has been designed to locate future residential uses away from the steeper slopes located along the northern portions of the site, and instead concentrates the development along the flatter portion. The steeper areas are also more highly visible to the community at large, and therefore is also proposed for natural open space and vineyards.

7. The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards as the land

use plan provides for the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with access requirements listed in the Development Code, and leverages these other areas for natural open space and vineyards which would not be otherwise feasible with the strict application of the RL-1 Development Standards.

FINDINGS: TENTATIVE MAP NO.20375 APPROVAL

1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, provided that the Preliminary Development Plan is approved, because the proposed use and overall density of 51 single family lots on 52 gross acres is consistent with the RL-1 (Rural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size) Land Use District that is augmented by the Preliminary Development Plan that includes standards that would apply specifically to the site, and the Conditions of Approval address the provision of public services and improvements.

2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development, because the Project site would be graded to create pad areas for future units, and has been designed to accommodate the proposed development, roadways, and associated infrastructure for the Project. In addition, physical constraints such as a drainage course, topography, or another environmental constraint, have been taken into consideration during the development of the Preliminary Development Plan and avoided with the subdivision design.

3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and substantially or avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the environmental review for the Project includes appropriate conditions or mitigation measures that demonstrate that the Project will have a less than significant impact to the environment.

4. The design of the proposed subdivision and any related types or proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public safety and health problems because conditions are included to assure compliance with all City health and safety standards.

5. The design of the proposed subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with public easements within or through the site because conditions have been included to ensure non-interference with any existing public easements.

6. The design of the subdivision provides for the extent feasible, passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities, because the Project proposes residential lots that would include the installation of solar panels, as required by the with the most current building code, without interference from surrounding properties, which provide opportunities for the use of solar energy.

7. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements conforms to the regulations of the Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law should the Preliminary Development Plan be approved pursuant to the provisions listed in Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code, and all public agencies that may be affected by this development have had their concerns addressed by the Conditions of Approval.

8. The proposed subdivision is not deemed to be a land project as defined by the Yucaipa Development Code, Section 812.12030.

LAND USE: RL- I (RURAL LIVING, 1-ACRE MINIMUM (GROSS) LOT SIZE

LOCATION
r I
.r y

RESOLUTION NO.2023-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA

ADOPTING THE SERRANO ESTATES PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20375/FINAL

DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA), ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR CASE NO. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375, AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM FOR THE SERRANO ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (the "City Council") has before it a request for approval of Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) No. 22-150 (the "Project") for the Serrano Estates Planned Development; and
WHEREAS, The proposed "Project" consists of a Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan (FDP) for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet and averaging over 20,000 square feet, of which 41 of the lots will be age restricted to those over 55, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a combined 12-acre area as part of a "Lot 52" and remainder lot that would include space for vineyards, and 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential development shall include 41 lots that are specifically restricted for qualifying senior residents (55 years of age or older); and WHEREAS, the proposed remaining lot for open space and agriculture will not be permitted for future residential development nor be permitted to have other uses that generate daily trips; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan contains a variety of goals and policies to encourage the development of housing for all incomes, to support high quality design for development projects in the City, and to protect key resources within the City; and WHEREAS, Housing and Neighborhoods Policy HN-3.3 identifies that the City should facilitate the development of market rate and affordable housing through regulatory permit processes, such as planned development, where feasible and appropriate, and WHEREAS, Public Safety Policy 5-1.8 notes that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability; and

WHEREAS, the Project site is designated as Rural Living, one -acre minimum (RL-1) and the Custom Home (CH) Overlay District, and subject to certain development standards including but not limited to those set forth in Section 84.0320, Rural Living (RL) District of Chapter 3 of Division 4 of the Yucaipa Development Code and Article 5 Custom Home (CH) Overlay District (Sections 85.040501 and 85.040502) of Chapter 4 of Division 5 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Development Plan proposed by the applicant includes development standards that are inconsistent with the existing development standards applicable to the Project site under the Development Code, including but not limited to, Section 84.0320, Rural Living (RL) District of Chapter 3 of Division 4 of the Yucaipa Development Code and Article 5 Custom Home (CH) Overlay District (Sections 85.040501 and 85.040502) of Chapter 4 of Division 5 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve the Project, the City Council is required by Development Code Section 83.030220 to find that all of the following are true:
(a) The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan and any other applicable plan.
(b) The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed and the site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, loading areas, landscaping, and other features required.
(c) The site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide improvements to accommodate the anticipated requirements of the proposed development.
(d) Adequate public services and facilities exist, or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development, and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of such public services to properties in the vicinity to be a detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. (e) The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property or the permitted use thereof and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area. (f) The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including, but not limited to, flood, seismic, fire, and slope hazards.
-2- Page 35

(g) The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards.
(h) If the development proposes to intermix residential and commercial uses, whether done in a vertical or a horizontal manner, the residential use is designed in such a way that it is buffered from the commercial use and is provided sufficient amenities to create a comfortable and healthy residential environment and to provide a positive quality of life for the residents. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, private open space, private or separated entrances, landscaping, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code provides the processing requirements for a Planned Development application, which is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations"; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve the Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan (FDP), the City Council must also make all findings required by the Subdivision Map Act and Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2022, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") was completed for the Project and a Notice of Intent ("NOI") was issued. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto, the City analyzed the potential impacts of a 51 single family lot planned development project (Case No. 20-136) on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated the MND and the Appendices for the Project to the public and other interested parties for a 20-day comment period, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, including posting of the document on the City's website and the State Clearinghouse, from July 15, 2022, through August 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, no written responses were received on the MND during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, an Additional Analysis (AA) on the previously -developed MND was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the CEQA in response to project design revisions that have been made following the public hearing process for Case No. 20-138 and that are now included as part of Case No. 22-150 that merely clarifies or amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Draft MND after it was circulated for public comment in July, 2022 to best account for the current proposal, and where recirculation is not required pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
-3- Page 36

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 15, 2023, to consider testimony on the Serrano Estates Planned Development and ultimately recommended approval of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2023 to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to consider all other testimony on the Serrano Estates Planned Development; and
WHEREAS, the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the review of the Project, the MND, and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Development Services Department, City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399. The custodian of records is Benjamin Matlock with the City of Yucaipa Development Services Department. Each of those documents is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, based on the information presented in the MND, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council reviewed, considered and has exercised its independent judgment in considering the MND and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings and finds that the MND is adequate and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, The City Council hereby finds that the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan provides development standards that further support the implementation of the General Plan and are appropriate for the conditions of the site, and makes all required Findings for approval of the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan pursuant to Development Code Section 83.030220, as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council hereby finds that Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan (FDP) is consistent with the proposed Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, and makes all required Findings for approval of TTM/20375/FDP pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code, as set forth in Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; -4- Page 37

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan and adopts the findings for the Preliminary Development Plan as set forth in Exhibit B; approves Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan (FDP) for Planned Development and adopts the findings for approval of TTM 20375/FDP and the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibits C and D, respectively; and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Additional Information for the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are hereby incorporated into the Project and shall be made conditions of the Project, as well as the Conditions of Approval associated with Tentative Tract Map No. 20375/Final Development Plan processed concurrently with the Preliminary Development Plan.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 17th day of April, 2023.

ATTEST:

Ana V. Sauseda, CMC
City Clerk
Justin Beaver
Mayor
-5- Page 38

EXHIBIT A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Under Separate Cover)
-I-

Exhibit B
Findings for Approval of Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan

1. The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the current land use district designation is Rural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size that would permit up to 52 single family lots. The proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards to permit the approval of 51 single family lots and one additional lot for vineyards and permanent open space.

Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan but works to provide development standards intended to achieve different design goals, including the preservation of natural open space, and provide areas for viticulture.

2. The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed through the proposed Preliminary Development Plan, which leverages the areas of the site that has limited topographical constraints to accommodate the residential capacity and preserves areas with greater slopes or naturalized drainage channels to remain as open space. The design also provides an opportunity for agrarian activities along visible areas intended to support a more rural community appearance and the local viticultural industry. As part of the Preliminary Development Plan, 51 single family homes is proposed within the 52 acre site, and development standards are included to accommodate 12,000 or greater square foot lots that includes design requirements pertaining to yards, setbacks, and walls and fences, while also establishing landscape buffers between the proposed vineyard and from the adjoining neighborhood along Yucaipa Ridge Road. In addition, the site has been arranged with larger lots along the Crystal Street/Quartz Street loop to best integrate with the existing neighborhood along Yucaipa Ridge Road.

3. The site for the proposed development has adequate access from Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed, and relevant condition of approval are required for the Project, including the completion of Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb, gutter, and a multipurpose trail, as well as the completion of additional improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, as part of the consideration on the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide the necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. The Project would further access Bryant Street, the primary thoroughfare, from Azurite Street and Topaz Street which are developed as local streets.

4. Adequate public services and facilities will be provided as a condition of development plan approval to serve the proposed development and is identified in Section 4 of the Preliminary Development Plan. This includes the extension of the sewer line from Bryant Street and improvements to potable water service, to support the future development. In addition, these improvements consider the development surrounding the site, and through the permit review -2-

process with the utility companies will ensure that there is not result in a reduction of such public services to the surrounding properties.

5. The proposed development has been designed to minimize any adverse effects on surrounding property by creating a land use design that can help buffer the differing lot sizes of proposed development (greater than a quarter (net) acre) to the existing development (one acre gross) through a landscaped basin along Yucaipa Ridge Road, and locating the permitted residential capacity towards interior streets to the Project. The proposed land uses for the site includes single family residences and land for agrarian purposes, which will provide compatibility between land use activities of the surrounding area.

6. The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including:
• Flood: The Preliminary Development Plan proposes a land use plan that would avoid any development in drainage areas that may pose a flood risk and would instead preserve the existing drainage channels that feed towards Spoor Creek as natural open space.
• Seismic hazards: The subject site is located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone boundary, and prior geotechnical studies completed for the site identify potential fault zone risks along the northern portion of the site. The Preliminary Development Plan would preserve such areas as open space, including natural open space and vineyards, in lieu of residential development. In addition, the proposed residential development would be subject to the California Building Code, and additional geotechnical studies will be completed as part of the permit process to provide for the structural design requirements for the new residences.
• Fire: Risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision, and the development would be subject to any additional water improvements to meet the code requirements for flow. Other key elements supported by the Project is a roadway design that meets the California Fire Code (CFC), including a maximum 12% grade, all weather roadway design capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets. General Plan Policy 5-1.8, Natural Topography, note that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability.
• Slope hazards: The Preliminary Development Plan has been designed to located future residential uses away from the steeper slopes located along the northern portions of the site, and instead concentrates the development along the flatter portion. The steeper -3-

areas are also more highly visible to the community at large, and therefore is also proposed for natural open space and vineyards.

7. The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards as the land use plan provides for the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with access requirements listed in the Development Code, and leverages these other areas for natural open space and vineyards which would not be otherwise feasible with the strict application of the RL-1 Development Standards.

M

EXHIBIT C
Conditions of Approval
(Under Separate Cover)
-5-

EXHIBIT D
TTM/FDP Findings of Approval
(Under Separate Cover)
I on

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 1
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23
ON -GOING CONDITIONS/GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

1. This Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP") is for the establishment of development standards that would be applicable to the site and would permit the development of 51 single family lots, as well as one additional lot that will consist of only open space and a vineyard or similar agricultural use. The proposed PDP includes four separate planning areas that would govern the development:

Planning Area A, designated as Agriculture, is the proposed 12 acres for the agricultural planting area; Planning Area B, designated as Low Residential, encompasses 27 acres and would permit the 51 single family residences; and Planning Area C would provide 13 acres of Open Space. As part of the PDP, Planning Area B is to include 41 lots that will be specifically age restricted for senior households with qualifying residents pursuant to state law (ages 55 or greater). With the PDP, Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 would subdivide the property. Any alteration or expansion of these facilities, or increase in the developed area of the site from that shown on the approved site plan, may require the submission of a new application or an additional application for Revisions for review and approval.

2. All lots shall have a minimum area of 12,000 square feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and a minimum width of 75 feet as measured at the building setback line delineated on the Composite Development Plan. Where lots occur on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, a minimum lot depth of ninety (90) feet may be permitted.

3. This Tentative Tract Map is for a project to be developed one subdivision phase.

Residential units will not be completed in a "Lot Sales" approach.

4. This PDP and Tentative Tract Map shall become null and void if all conditions have not been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land has not taken place within three (3) years of the date of approval. Up to two extensions of time pursuant to the provisions of Section 83.040220(e) of the Yucaipa Development Code may be granted upon written request and submittal of the appropriate fee not less than 30 days prior to the date of expiration. PLEASE NOTE: this will be the only notice given for the above specified expiration date. The applicant is responsible for the initiation of an extension request. Additionally, expiration of the subdivision map also will result in the expiration of the Planned Development pursuant to Section 83.030225 of the Yucaipa Development Code.

5. Water and Sewage disposal shall be by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. The Yucaipa Valley Water District letter provided as part of the Project application materials is included as a Condition of Approval.

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 2
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

6. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual ownership or until the maintenance is officially assumed by an approved maintenance authority.

7. Mail delivery shall be by neighborhood boxes or other delivery as approved by the U.S. Postal Service.

8. All future development of this site shall be in accordance with the provisions of the PDP development standards and requirements.

9. A minimum of 12 acres of the proposed development shall be retained as open space for agriculture, and a minimum of 13 acres of the required open space shall remain as ungraded natural open space.

10. Areas to be dedicated for the purpose of meeting the natural open space requirements of this project shall possess no development rights since said development rights have been transferred to other portions of the project. Said open space shall remain in its natural condition, with maintenance occurring in an approved manner. No grading or structures of any type shall be permitted in the natural open space easements, including walls or fencing.

11. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding attacking or seeking to set aside, void or annul the approval of all or part of the matters applied for, or any other claim, action or proceeding relating to or arising out of such approval.

This obligation includes the obligation to reimburse the City, its agents, officers and employees for any court costs or attorney fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees are required by a court to pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding. The City agrees to notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding promptly after the City becomes aware of it. The City may participate in the defense of the claim, action or proceeding, but such participation will not relieve the applicant of applicant's defense and indemnification obligations, including City expenses.

12. The applicant/owner shall pay a fee of $2,764.00, pursuant to Senate Bill 1535.

This fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division within three (3) days after the effective date of conditional approval along with a $50.00 administrative handling fee required by the Clerk. Payments shall be made with a Check, Money Order or Cashier's Check for $2,814.00 made payable to the "Clerk of the Board". The Planning Division shall then file the Notice of Determination within three (3) days after the effective date of conditional approval. The applicant should be aware that Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code provides that any project approved under CEQA is not operative, vested or final until the required fee is paid. Proof of fee payment will be required prior to issuance of building permits.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

13. All future development of this site shall be in accordance with the provisions of Division 7, Chapter 11, of the Development Code regarding Hillside/Ridgeline development standards and requirements where applicable.

14. All future development of this site shall be in accordance with the provisions of Division 9, Chapter 5, of the Development Code regarding Oak Tree Conservation development standards and requirements.

15. The keeping of large animals in residential subdivisions, where such use is permitted by the Development Code, may be reasonably regulated by CC&R's, but it shall not be prohibited.

16. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit shall attempt to ensure that at least 25% of the total cost of the project will be spent with Yucaipa businesses and/or the hiring of Yucaipa residents.

17. All proposed road names shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.

18. The designated open space/agricultural lot shall not be further subdivided and be maintained in perpetuity.

19. The designated open space/agricultural lot shall not include activities that result in an increase in daily trips, as identified by the project proponent.

20. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246

21. This project is protected by the Yucaipa Fire Department/CalFire. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Marshall for verification of current fire protection development requirements. All new construction shall comply with the adopted California Fire Code and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, standards and policies of the Yucaipa Fire Department/CalFire.

22. This project is in a Fire Safety Review Area 1. This is a high fire hazard area.

This project shall comply with the construction and development standards for a FR-1 Area. Contact the Building & Safety Division for FR-1 Area construction and development standards.

23. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets shall meet the Fire Department minimum width standard of twenty-six (26) feet for the FR-1 zone.

Access roads shall be paved (asphalt/concrete) and in place prior to placement of combustible material on site. Fire Department minimum paving thickness shall

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

be no less than four (4) inches. This standard shall not lessen other agency requirements.

24. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets and residential driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen (13) feet and six (6) inches.

25. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets and driveways shall not exceed 12% grade (please note: Engineering Division requirements may be more restrictive).

26. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets shall not exceed 350 feet in length within the FR-1 zone unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall.

27. Required fire flow for this project, as determined by California Fire Code Appendix `B,' is as follows: gpm = 1,500; at 20 psi residual; for 2-hour duration.

System shall be looped with minimum eight (8) inch mains; six (6) inch laterals; six (6) inch risers; six (6) inch diameter hydrants with one 2 '/2" outlet and one 4" outlet.

28. Approved fire hydrants capable of supplying required fire flow shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are constructed or moved within the jurisdiction. When any portion of the facility or building protected is in excess of 400 feet from a fire hydrant on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional fire hydrants, meeting the required fire flow, shall be provided.

29. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations to be determined by the current (2022) California Fire Code Appendix "C" and the required fire flow shall be determined by the current (2022) California Fire Code Appendix "B". Minimum fire flow shall not be less than 1500 gpm.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 254

30. Preliminary WQMP shall be submitted for review. If project will not require a WQMP, documentation indicating a WQMP is not required shall be submitted.

31. Submit WQMP Plan for Approval.

32. Groundwater pollution from urban run-off water generated by the project shall be mitigated using various structural and non-structural best management practices (BMP's), per the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region and/or as indicated in the "New Development/Redevelopment Guidelines". All provisions of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the 2010 MS4 permit and most recent regulatory mandates shall be met.

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 5
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

33. The natural drainage courses traversing the site shall not be occupied or obstructed.

34. All lots must drain to streets, per the approved WQMP if applicable. If lots do not drain to streets, the cross lot drainage will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer under provision of the Uniform Building Code Appendix 33 and the Development Code.

35. Applicant shall demonstrate that the site does not create concentrated discharges to adjacent properties and/or public right-of-way in excess of historical flows. If project does create concentrated or sheet flows off -site that are greater than historical, the applicant shall demonstrate that the downstream facilities can accommodate flows; otherwise, applicant shall provide on -site detention for excess flows in accordance with the approved WQMP.

36. Yucaipa Ridge Road shall be designed as a water -carrying street and its water carrying capacity shall be retained.

37. Adequate elevations/geometry shall be provided on the entrance roads to the site along Yucaipa Ridge Road to minimize the possibility of street flow entering the site

38. Lots adjacent to water -carrying streets shall be adequately elevated above the top of curb, or block walls provided, or both, to minimize the possibility of street flows entering the lots.

39. Roads within this development shall be entered into the City Maintained Road System.

40. Road sections within and/or bordering the tract shall be designed and constructed with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to City Road Standards, and in accordance with the General Plan Circulation Element. At intersections and driveways entering the street, the first 20 feet of slope shall not exceed 6%.

41. Final improvement plans and profiles shall indicate the location of any existing utility facility which would affect construction. Existing utility poles shall be shown on the improvement plans and relocated as necessary without cost to the City.

42. Slope rights shall be dedicated on the Final Tract Map where necessary.

43. An approved type wall/barrier shall be required along the rear of double frontage lots and shall be constructed outside the public right-of-way.

44. Private roads to be constructed within this development shall be built to public road standards per City policies and requirements (including Standard Number 102-0), and they shall not be entered into the City Maintained Road System.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

45. Turnarounds at dead-end streets shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Marshall.

46. A thirty-five (35) foot radius curb return is required for rounding the corner of intersecting roads when the half -width right-of-way of any intersecting road is forty (40) feet or greater. A twenty (20) foot radius curb return is required for rounding the corners of intersecting roads if the half -width right-of-way of all intersecting roads is less than forty (40) feet. At intersections, street dedication (right-of-way) shall be a corner cut-off from point of curb return (PCR) to PCR of property line.

47. Road profile grades shall not be less than 0.5% unless the engineer at the time of submittal of the improvement plans provides justification to the satisfaction of the City Engineer confirming the adequacy of the grade.

48. Paved access is required from each parcel being created to a publicly maintained road. City street name signs shall be installed indicating street names and if publicly maintained or not.

49. Continuous water spraying or other approved methods must be used during grading operations to control fugitive dust.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO
RECORDATON OF THE FINAL MAP:

FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246

50. A greenbelt or fuel modification zone plan shall be required and bonded for this project. Fuel modification plan requirements shall be site specific to this project.

The applicant shall submit a fuel modification plan to the Fire Department for review and comments or approval. Maintenance provisions of the fuel modification zone shall be approved by the Fire Department. Maintenance of the fuel modification zone, located in designated open space, and enforcement of the fuel modification zone, within the property of individual property owners, shall be the responsibility of a homeowners' association or other approved maintenance authority that is acceptable to the Fire Department.

51. Three sets of water delivery system plans, designed to meet the required fire flow for this project and/or development, shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.

52. Applicant -developer shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the water provider serving the project -development verifying that financial arrangements

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

have been made and bonds posted for the required Fire Department approved water improvements.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 254

53. A preliminary soils report shall be filed with and approved by the City Engineer

54. A geology report, prepared by a Licensed Engineering Geologist, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall also include an updated fault study.

55. Fifteen (15) foot building setback lines shall be shown on the Composite Development Plan to preclude the construction of any structure in the overflow area of the natural drainage courses.

56. Adequate provisions shall be made to intercept and conduct the off -site tributary drainage flow around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.

57. Adequate City Drainage Easements (minimum fifteen (15) feet wide) shall be provided over the natural drainage courses and/or drainage facilities, including WQMP identified BMP areas. The easements shall be designed to contain the 100-year frequency storm flow plus bulking and freeboard per City Standard Criteria. Flowage easements or City Drainage Easements shall be obtained where diversion or concentration of runoff from the site or drainage facilities dewaters onto private property.

58. Detention basins shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the City Detention Basin Policy and the approved WQMP. All work shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

59. Detention basins for the purposes of water quality filtration shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the project WQMP, landscape plans and City Detention Basin Policy. All work shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

60. Should the use of detention basins be determined not appropriate in this case, the applicant shall design an alternate method, approved by the City Engineer.

61. The WQMP shall be approved and the developer shall provide a financial mechanism for the maintenance of the detention basins which shall be set in place and approved by the City Engineer. The WQMP maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded by the applicant.

62. The major natural drainage course(s) traversing the site shall be delineated on the Final Map. Adequate easements and building setback lines should be

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

designed, offered and dedicated on the Final Map as "City Easements". Survey data regarding top of bank and/or channel cross -sections shall be provided to the Engineering Division.

63. In addition to the drainage, traffic related, or other requirements stated herein, other "on -site" or "off -site" improvements may be required which cannot be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to the City Engineer.

64. A Registered Civil Engineer shall investigate and design adequate drainage facilities to intercept and conduct the drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. The Hydrology Study provided shall be revised to include the two existing drainage channels located on the northern side of the subdivision as part of the formal review.

65. A thorough evaluation of the structural road section, to include parkway improvements, from a qualified materials engineer, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division.

66. A traffic analysis shall be completed to provide a stop sign warrant analysis at the intersection of Yucaipa Ridge Road and Quartz Street, and a stop sign/traffic light analysis for the intersection of Bryant Street and Juniper. Street improvement plans and construction/bonding requirements shall be completed prior to recordation, and any required improvements shall be constructed prior to permit finals.

67. Existing City roads which will require reconstruction shall remain open for traffic at all times, with adequate detours, during actual construction. A cash deposit may be required to cover the cost of grading and paving prior to recordation of the map. Upon completion of the grading and paving to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, the cash deposit will be refunded.

68. Trees, irrigation system, and landscaping required to be installed on public right- of-way within this project area shall be maintained by other than the City, with the exception of Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District areas, and shall be as specified in City standards for tree planting. Maintenance procedures acceptable to the Engineering Division shall be instituted.

69. All required public road and drainage improvements shall be bonded in accordance with the Development Code and City Bonding Policy unless constructed and approved prior to recordation.

70. In the event applicant fails to acquire the required off -site property interests, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map, enter into an

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the applicant of all costs incurred by the City to acquire off -site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the applicant, at the applicant's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.

71. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans to the Engineering Division and bond for those improvements with the City.

72. A forty -foot grant of easement is required to provide a half -width right-of-way of 40 feet on Yucaipa Ridge Rd. An additional dedication shall be provided to connect to the access easements located north of the subject site for Yucaipa Ridge Road.

73. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and eighteen (18) or twenty-eight (28) feet of paving shall be installed on Yucaipa Ridge Road. Additional design elements will include a turnaround cul-de-sac at the terminus of Yucaipa Ridge Road. Plans for all improvements must be approved by the Engineering Division, prior to installation of said improvements. A cash deposit or surety bond may be placed to fulfill this requirement.

74. The applicant shall provide proof of legal and physical access to the proposed subdivision. As proof of access, the applicant shall submit one of the following:
(a) existing dedication; (b) copy of the court decree establishing prescriptive rights that is acceptable to the City Engineer; (c) dedications by separate instrument from all property owners intervening between the proposed land division and the City Maintained Road System.

75. Right-of-way and improvements (including off -site) to transition traffic and drainage flows from proposed to existing shall be required as necessary.

76. Slope stability tests are required for road cuts or road fills in excess of a 2:1 slope.

77. A Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall be retained to design the proposed road alignment to the approval of the City Engineer. A contour map at sufficient intervals to determine existing topography (not to exceed five feet) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer delineating the alignment and grade of the proposed access roads designed to City standards.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

78. Applicant shall present evidence to the City Engineer that he has obtained a non- interference letter from any utility company that may have rights of easement within the property boundaries.

79. Easements of record not shown on the tract/parcel map shall be relinquished or relocated. Lots affected by proposed easements or easements of record, which cannot be relinquished or relocated, shall be redesigned.

80. Any off -site grading easements shall be obtained and these areas shall be contour graded.

81. Applicant shall provide for street lighting within the tract as per adopted City standards and per Improvement Level requirements.

82. This project shall be required to annex into a Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) or create a Homeowners Association (HOA) for new development if it is determined necessary for the provision of maintenance services per LLMD standards or specifications to public or common areas that may be a part of the development, and the applicant hereby agrees to waive the right to protest the formation of said district. Developer must submit to the City of Yucaipa two (2) blue -lines, full size, one (1) "as built" mylar landscape/irrigation plan, one (1) reduced 11 x 17 set, and one (1) 11 x 17 laminated set for the controller cabinet. Three copies of a Landscape Documentation Package, consistent with Division 10, Chapter 4, of the Development Code shall be submitted for review and approval. An Engineer's report shall be submitted and approved for the LLMD.

83. Prior to approval of the Final Map for recordation, annexation proceedings shall have been completed and the subdivision annexed into the City's Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for the provision of maintenance services to public and/or common areas within the subdivision. The LLMD shall include a Dormant Homeowners Association to be activated should the LLMD for this project be disestablished. As a condition of this subdivision approval, the applicant consents to the annexation of the subdivision into the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District, and agrees to waive and shall waive the right to protest said annexation, and assessment thereof for the provision of such maintenance services.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

84. An approved domestic water system and/or sewage collection system with adequate line and storage capacity to serve each parcel must be installed or bonded for. Contact Yucaipa Valley Water District for information regarding this procedure.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

85. During installation of water and sewer lines, vehicular access along the public right of way shall be maintained and provide clearance for emergency vehicles.

All necessary improvements shall be located within improved roadways that connect to the subdivision.

86. A Composite Development Plan, complying with Development Code Section

83.040505, shall be filed by the applicant with the Planning Division for review and approval.

87. The following building setback lines shall be delineated/noted on the Composite Development Plan:

A. A variable front yard building setback line of at least 25 feet.

B. A side yard building setback line of at least 15 feet adjacent to side streets on corner lots.

88. The Composite Development Plan shall include the following notes:

A. All parcels may be located within 1,320 feet of existing accessory animal raising uses which existed prior to the creation of this subdivision. Such uses will be protected from nuisance complaints pursuant to the City Development Code, Section 84.0560, entitled "Accessory Animal Raising".

B. Prior to occupancy, a minimum number of one (1) inch caliper/15 gallon, multi -branched trees and an appropriate groundcover shall be planted in the parkway within street right-of-way as follows:

Small trees: 25 feet on center
Large trees: 30 feet on center
These trees are to be of a type and are to be placed in such a manner as indicated in note above.

C. Street trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb shall be provided with a linear root barrier.

D. Specify three approved street tree types (actual variety is to be approved by the Planning Division) and detail the planting specifications as outlined in the City's Standards and Specifications for Tree Planting.

E. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, slope planting shall be required for the surface of all cut slopes more than five (5) feet in height and fill slopes more than three (3) feet in height. Said slopes shall be protected against damage by erosion by planting with grass or ground cover plants.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

Slopes exceeding eight (8) feet vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten (10) feet on centers; and trees, spaced at not to exceed thirty (30) feet on centers. The plants selected and planting methods used shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the site.

Trees 50% 15 gal.; 50% 5 gal.

Shrubs 50% 5 gal.; 50% 1 gal;
Groundcover 100% coverage.

F. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, slopes and parkways required to be planted shall be provided with an approved automatic system of irrigation, designed to cover all portions of the slope and parkway. A functional test of the system may be required. All irrigation systems, where required, shall be designed on an individual lot basis unless commonly maintained in an approved manner.

G. No grading or structures of any type shall be permitted in the open space easements, including walls or fencing. Fuel modification improvements, natural vegetation and/or re -vegetation in compliance with resource agency permits and regulations, drainage facilities, and trail improvements are permitted in the natural open space areas.

H. A six (6) foot decorative masonry wall shall be provided at the top of slope (if applicable) along the side and rear of lots adjacent to public roads and other walls as shown on the approved Tentative Map. All decorative walls shall be designed and constructed to incorporate design features such as tree planter wells, variable setback, split block face, columns, or other such features to provide visual and physical relief along the wall face.

Decorative block walls may incorporate see -through features to take advantage of views, such as wrought iron or tubular steel sections between decorative block pillars, but must include a minimum two (2) foot masonry base. Walls along street frontage shall be provided with a seal coat of graffiti resistant paint and/or dense landscaping in front of the wall.

No fence, wall, or retaining wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height (four (4) feet in front yard setback areas) unless a Variance is approved by the City.

89. Should a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District be formed to provide for City services, this project shall annex into the district if it is required by the City, and the applicant hereby agrees to waive the right to protest the formation of said district.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

90. All lettered lots and open space easements for the preservation of natural undisturbed open space shall be dedicated to the City or other approved maintenance authority.

91. Proof of fee payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to California State Assembly Bill 3158 shall be submitted.

92. The applicant/owner shall process a Condition Compliance Review through the City for verification of conditions prior to final map recordation.

93. The owner of the tentative tract map must establish a homeowners association )A added by
(HOA) subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that are ff — March 27,
approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs must, at a minimum, set forth 23 property maintenance standards that are enforceable by the City of Yucaipa.

Furthermore, the CC&Rs must include provisions requiring that at least 80% of the housing units within the development be occupied by seniors aged 55 years or older in order to maintain the required ratio of senior -owned housing.

94. The owner must submit to the City of Yucaipa a viticulture conservation )A added by easement in favor of the City. The easement must ensure that the designated .ff — March 27, land within the tract will be preserved and used as a vineyard in perpetuity. In the 23 event the land ceases to be used as a vineyard, the conservation easement must provide for the reversion of the land to the City of Yucaipa.

95. The owner is required to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the )A added by purpose of financing the maintenance and operation of the vineyard property off — March 27, within the tract map. The CFD must include a default assessment mechanism 23 that will take effect if the City of Yucaipa is required to maintain or operate the vineyard property. The CFD and its related assessments must be structured and implemented in accordance with applicable state and local laws, and the owner must cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the CFD.

96. The Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), which covenant shall run with the land, in a form satisfactory to the City Planner, shall require that the owners of the lots shall immediately remove any graffiti placed on publicly viewable trees, rocks or structures thereon to the City's satisfaction. The CC&Rs shall also prohibit the future subdivision of the site.

97. Two copies of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Division and City Attorney's office for review and approval to ensure consistency with City policies and standards.

98. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall record Covenants, Conditions or Restrictions or other covenant establishing the 41 age -restricted lots (55 years and older) in accordance with applicable federal and state law, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 14
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

99. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 263
100. Three copies of a Landscape Documentation Package shall be submitted for Building and Safety Division review and approval. Said Landscape Documentation Package shall be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 4, of Division 10, of the Development Code and include all of the following elements:

A. Project Information
(1) Date
(2) Project Applicant
(3) Project Address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)) (4) Total Landscape Area (square feet)
(5) Project Type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed)
(6) Water Supply Type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a private well
(7) Checklist of All Documents in Landscape Documentation Package (8) Project Contacts (to include contact information for the project applicant and property owner)
(9) Applicant Signature and Date (with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package"). (B) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
(1) Hydrozone Information Table
(2) Water Budget Calculations
(1) Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23
(II) Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)
(C) Soil Management Report
(D) Landscape Design Plan
(E) Irrigation Design Plan
(F) Grading Design Plan

(G) Certification of Substantial Completion (to be submitted after installation of the project).

A copy of the approved Landscape Documentation Package shall be provided to the property owner or site manager along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. A copy of the Water Conservation Concept Statement and the Certificate of Substantial Completion shall be sent by the project manager to the local retail water purveyor.
101. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted for Building and Safety Division review and approval for all proposed lots (including areas to be maintained by a Landscape Maintenance District, which shall have separate landscape plans). Said Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall include all of the requirements specified in the current City of Yucaipa Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines, and shall also include the following:

A. The required slope planting. Slope planting shall be required for the surface of all cut slopes more than five (5) feet in height and fill slopes more than three (3) feet in height. Said slopes shall be protected against damage from erosion by planting with grass or ground cover plants.

Slopes exceeding eight (8) feet in vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten (10) feet on centers; and trees, spaced at not to exceed thirty (30) feet on centers, per City Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines.

Trees 50% 15 gal.; 50% 5 gal.

Shrubs 50% 5 gal.; 50% 1 gal.

Groundcover 100% coverage
B. Parkway planting with trees and appropriate groundcover. Trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb shall be provided with root barriers.

Tree spacing/location:

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 16
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23
Small trees: 25 feet on center
Large trees: 30 feet on center
C. A six (6) foot decorative masonry wall shall be provided at the top of slope (if applicable) along the side and rear of lots adjacent to public roads and as shown on the approved Tentative Map. All decorative walls shall be designed and constructed to incorporate design features such as tree planter wells, variable setback, split block face, columns, or other such features to provide visual and physical relief along the wall face.

Decorative block walls may incorporate see -through features to take advantage of views, such as wrought iron or tubular steel sections between decorative block pillars, but must include a minimum two (2) foot masonry base. Walls along street frontage shall be provided with a seal coat of graffiti resistant paint and/or dense landscaping in front of the wall.

No fence, wall, or retaining wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height (four (4) feet in front yard setback areas) unless a Variance is approved by the City.

D. Neighborhood entry monuments, including elevations.

E. All required and proposed multi -use trails, including specifications for construction.

F. For landscape installations, Compost at a rate of a minimum of 4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six (6) inches into the soil. Soils with greater than six percent (6%) organic matter in the top six (6) inches of soil are exempt from adding Compost and tilling.

G. Apply a minimum three- (3-) inch layer of mulch on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is contraindicated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, leave up to five percent (5%) of the landscape area without mulch.

Designated insect habitat must be included in the landscape design plan as such.

H. Compost and mulch made by the City's franchised hauler or other designee from recovered organic waste products pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18993.1 shall take precedence over inorganic or virgin forest products when available locally.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

102. All irrigation systems, where required, shall be designed on an individual lot basis unless commonly maintained in an approved manner.
103. All landscaping and irrigation systems shown on the approved landscape and irrigation plans, all required walls, trails, and/or other improvements shall be completed or suitable bonds shall be posted for their completion. Separate bonds are required for individual lots and Landscape Maintenance District Areas.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT:

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 263
104. This project will require one or more building permits. Permits will require a complete permit application and complete building plans to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work.
105. The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.
106. The structures shall comply with all structural and non-structural provisions of the California Building Code.
107. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. 108. The perimeter of the jobsite shall have a properly installed, 6' high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.
109. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings. 110. New projects with a landscape area of 500 square feet or more, or projects rehabilitating an existing landscape area of 2,500 square feet or more shall comply with Sections 492.6(a)(3)(b) (c), (d) and (g) of the MWELO including the use of renewable organic waste products such as compost and mulch where applicable.
111. Three (3) copies of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. A copy of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division when graded slopes exceed five (5) feet in height. All on -site cut and fill slopes shall:

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

A. Be a part of the downhill lot when between individual lots, or as approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.

B. Incorporate recommendations of the approved geology and soils reports.

C. Be contour graded to blend with existing natural contours.

D. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of two -to -one (2:1) and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from the top and bottoms of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half (1/2) the slope height or per CBC.

E. Preclude damage to the site and downstream properties during heavy storm run-off, especially during the construction stage by including a stringent slope, erosion, and sediment control program on the proposed grading plan. Any such damage allowed to occur will be the responsibility of the applicant.

F. Be consistent with the requirements of Division 7, Chapter 11, of the Development Code, regarding Hillside/Ridgeline development standards and requirements. All open space easements and natural undisturbed open space shall be indicated as ungraded areas not to be disturbed.

G. Provide letters of consent from adjacent property owners for proposed offsite grading.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
112. During installation of water and sewer lines, vehicular access along the public right of way shall be maintained and provide clearance for emergency vehicles.

All necessary improvements shall be located within improved roadways that connect to the subdivision.
113. Any abandoned wells on the property or similar structures that might result in groundwater contamination shall be destroyed in a manner approved by the City. 114. Grading permits shall not be issued for any areas to be graded and remain undeveloped until a revegetation plan is approved by the Planning Division, and until bonds are posted for revegetation.
115. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 254

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

116. Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent and comply with the requirements of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board if the project site is one (1) acre or greater. 117. An on -site grading monitor shall be required in accordance with Development Code Section 87.1010 for all grading operations.
118. Prior to the alteration of any wetland habitats, the required permits or authorized clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Fish and Game in accordance with the Section 1600 et seq. of the State Fish and Game Code, from the United States Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 119. The applicant shall provide documentation indicating that the WQMP, grading plan, erosion control plan and landscape plan are consistent with each other. The documentation shall indicate that each document has been reviewed by the applicant for consistency.
120. Prior to signing of the improvement plans, any proposed grading within the road right-of-way shall be done under the direction of a Soils Testing Engineer, hired by the applicant. Compaction tests of embankment construction, trench backfill, and all subgrades shall be performed at no cost to the City. Prior to placement of any base materials, and/or paving, a written report shall be submitted by the applicant's engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. 121. For any construction within City owned right-of-way, an encroachment permit, or authorized clearance, shall be obtained by the applicant from the Engineering Division.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET:

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 263
122. This project will require one or more building permits. Permits will require a complete permit application and complete building plans to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work.
123. The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.
124. The structures shall comply with all structural and non-structural provisions of the California Building Code.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

125. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. 126. The perimeter of the jobsite shall have a properly installed, 6' high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.
127. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings. 128. For all required walls, the applicant shall submit plans to and obtain building permits from the Building and Safety Division.
129. Three copies of a Landscape Documentation Package shall be submitted for Building & Safety Division review and approval. Said Landscape Documentation Package shall be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 4, of Division 10, of the Development Code and include all of the following elements:

A. Project Information
(1) Date
(2) Project Applicant
(3) Project Address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)) (4) Total Landscape Area (square feet)
(5) Project Type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed)
(6) Water Supply Type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a private well
(7) Checklist of All Documents in Landscape Documentation Package (8) Project Contacts (to include contact information for the project applicant and property owner)
(9) Applicant Signature and Date (with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package").

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23
(B) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
(1) Hydrozone Information Table
(2) Water Budget Calculations
(1) Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
(II) Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)
(C) Soil Management Report
(D) Landscape Design Plan
(E) Irrigation Design Plan
(F) Grading Design Plan

(G) Certification of Substantial Completion (to be submitted after installation of the project).

A copy of the approved Landscape Documentation Package shall be provided to the property owner or site manager along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. A copy of the Water Conservation Concept Statement and the Certificate of Substantial Completion shall be sent by the project manager to the local retail water purveyor.
130. Three (3) copies of a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a Registered Landscape Architect for the planting (drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized to minimize water consumption) and permanent irrigation system for the development, including setback areas and parkways, shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Division for review and approval. Said plans must be consistent with the City of Yucaipa Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines and include the following details:

A. Voltage boxes, mailboxes, trash enclosures, maintenance structures, backflow devices, automatic controls, air conditioning/heating units, etc., to be shown on the plan and screened with landscaping and/or decorative fencing/trim.

B. A permanent automatically -controlled irrigation system.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

C. Landscaping shall consist of drought tolerant vegetation appropriate to the local climate. Trees, shrubs and ground covers in the following quantities shall be required as follows:

1. Compost
Compost at a rate of a minimum of 4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six (6) inches into the soil. Soils with greater than six percent (6%) organic matter in the top six (6) inches of soil are exempt from adding Compost and tilling.

2. Tree planting (15 gallon size):
a. 1 for each 600 sq. ft. of total landscaped
area (one required, minimum);
b. 80% of total trees required to be 15 gallon;
C. 1 for every 12 parking stalls;

3. 24 to 96 inch box trees:
a. 20% of total trees required (one required, minimum).

4. Tree Spacing/location:
a. small trees: 20 feet O.C. max.;
b. large trees: 30 feet O.C. max.;
C. street trees: 15 gal. min./30 feet O.C. max.;
d. min. 6 feet from curbs, paving and sidewalks;
trees in parkway between sidewalk and curb
shall be provided with a linear root barrier.

5. 5 gallon shrubs:
a. 60% of total shrubs required to be 5 gallon;
b. 10 for each 300 sq. ft. of landscaped area.

6. 1 gallon shrubs:
a. 40% of total shrubs required.

7. Ground Cover:
a. Drought tolerant adapted when mature, or native;

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

b. Maximum spacing: 12 inches O.C., or as suitable for planting material;
C. Hydroseeding (establish recommended mixture); specify weight or volume per unit area.

7. Mulch:
a. Apply a minimum three- (3-) inch layer of mulch on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding
applications where mulch is contraindicated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, leave up to five percent (5%) of the landscape area without mulch.

Designated insect habitat must be included in the landscape design plan as such
D. Parking/vehicular circulation areas screened with landscaped berms adjacent to streets.

E. Landscape detail of trash enclosures, to be located within 200 ft. of building pad.

F. All walls and fences shall be shown, at the top of slope (if applicable), with the style, design, materials, and colors indicated.

G. Design features to direct storm water run-off into landscaped pervious areas to achieve percolation into the ground before run-off flows reach the public rights -of -way.

H. Detector -check valve assembly screening and camouflage, which shall include landscaped berms and/or depressions, shrub screening, and the painting of the equipment to match the landscaping. The height of the equipment shall not exceed the minimum ground clearance established by the applicable code. It is not permitted to be located within the front yard building setback area, unless otherwise approved by City Inspector. 131. New projects with a landscape area of 500 square feet or more shall comply with Sections 492.6(a)(3)(b) (c), (d) and (g) of the MWELO including the use of renewable organic waste products such as compost and mulch where applicable. 132. Compost and mulch made by the City's franchised hauler, Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. (909) 797-9125, or other designee from recovered organic waste products pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18993.1 shall take precedence over inorganic or virgin forest products when available locally.

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 24
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23
PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
133. The enrollment of the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District is severely impacted by new development. To mitigate the impact of this project, developer shall pay such taxes as are required by the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1, and any other fees assessed by Government Code Section 53080, and 65995-65997.
134. The City of Yucaipa has implemented development impact fees for various infrastructure and capital facilities needs generated by new development. These fees will provide for various capital facilities including, but not limited to, roads, parks, flood control and drainage, public facilities, and fire fighting facilities. This project shall be subject to all such development impact fees which are in effect at the time building permits are issued.
135. Provide plans for conceptual landscaping, fencing, and detailed building elevations including materials, finishes and colors for all houses for Planning Commission review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 136. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246
137. Prior to any construction, the entire fuel modification zone required and approved by the Fire Department shall be completed. Any phased implementation of the required fuel modification zone shall be done only with prior approval of the Fire Department.
138. A fuel break of one hundred (100) feet (brush and weed clearance) is required prior to construction. The clearance shall be maintained on a year-round basis. 139. An additional fuel modification zone of 100 feet shall be provided on all side(s) of the proposed structure(s). Fuels in this zone are to be thinned and/or removed or otherwise modified to provide a reasonable level of fire defense protection to the proposed structure(s).
140. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operational as per approved water system delivery plans prior to any framing, construction, or delivery of combustible materials to project site.
141. An alternative type of construction providing a higher level of fire resistance is required. Contact the Fire Marshall or City Building Official for more information.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED AND/OR USED FOR

PURPOSES APPLIED FOR UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
HAVE BEEN MET:

FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246
142. Residential driveways shall be paved (asphalt/concrete) and shall have a minimum width of twelve (12) feet. Driveways of this standard shall serve no more than two single family dwellings and shall not exceed 12% in grade. 143. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets exceeding one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (cul-de-sac). Minimum radius shall be not less than 40 feet.
144. Driveways exceeding 150 feet shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (hammer -head tee).
145. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets and driveways shall extend to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. An access road, approved by the Fire Department, shall be provided to within fifty (50) feet of all structures when the natural grade between access road and structure is in excess of 30%. Where an approved access road cannot be provided, a fire protection system shall be required and approved by the Fire Department.
146. The Development and/or project, and each phase thereof, shall have a minimum of two (2) remote points of access, including a secondary access, for fire and other emergency equipment and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations.
147. The public roadways serving this project shall be named. 148. Street name signs shall be installed with approved names. 149. Manual operated gates across Fire Department access roadways, public and/or private streets and driveways, shall be equipped with approved emergency key - operated ("Knox" type) locks. For automatic gates, a "Knox" keyed emergency access switch shall be installed at location determined by Fire Department, and shall over -ride all command functions and open gate automatically upon activation. All automatic gates shall have a manual over -ride for use during loss of electric power. "Knox box" request forms are available from the Fire Department.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

150. Address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing residential structures in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from the access roadway or street. Single-family dwellings shall have numbers of 4" height, 1/2" stroke on contrasting background. Address numbers shall be low voltage, automatically electrically illuminated. Where structure setback exceeds one hundred (100) feet from the access roadway or street, additional non -illuminated numbers 4" in height, 1/2" stroke, on contrasting background shall be displayed at property access entrance.
151. Approved fire hydrant pavement markers shall be installed. 152. Residential automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed according to NFPA 13D, or Section R313 of the California Residential Code, and Fire Department requirements. Submit three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and hydraulic calculations for Fire Department review and approval prior to an installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. Minimum water meter supplying a 13D system shall be 1" steel pipe, or 3/" if other than steel pipe.

Minimum pipe size for interior use shall be 1" steel pipe, or 3/" if other than steel pipe (actual pipe size to be hydraulically calculated). Residential sprinkler heads of proper temperature rating shall be installed in attic and built-up storage spaces where mechanical equipment (fau, water heater, etc.) is installed. 153. Smoke detectors, hard wired in series with battery back-up, shall be installed in all sleeping areas and in all hallways and areas/rooms leading to sleeping areas.

Smoke detectors shall be installed at the top of all stairways. At least one smoke detector shall be installed on the first floor level.
154. Carbon Monoxide detectors shall be installed pursuant to manufacturer specifications.
155. For each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel is used, an approved spark arrester shall be installed and visible from the ground. Spark arrester shall be of stainless steel, copper or brass, woven galvanized wire mesh, twelve (12) gauge, and minimum of 3/8" to Y2" maximum openings.
156. A class "A" roof covering structure with "bird stops" shall be installed. 157. High Fire Hazard Areas FR-1 & FR-2: one -hour fire resistive construction is required for exterior walls. Contact Fire Marshall or City Building Official for more information.
158. The main electrical panel and all sub -panels shall be labeled on inside cover for all circuits.
159. Water heater (fuel fired) shall be property vented to exterior of structure. Water heater shall be seismic strapped to wall and be located 18" above a garage floor.

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

160. A one -hour fire rated, solid core, self closing door shall be installed between an attached garage and living space.
161. Submit to Fire Marshal's office building and/or structure plans for Fire Department Review.
162. High fire zone building requirements are required. Refer to California Building Code Chapter 7A and Yucaipa Development Code Section 85.020220.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 254
163. Construction of private roads and private road related drainage improvements shall be inspected and certified by the City Engineer.
164. All required road and drainage improvements shall be completed. This also includes intersection improvements completed during the stop sign/traffic light traffic warrant analysis.
165. Projects subject to a building permit shall have all required on and off -site improvements, required for each phase, completed and approved prior to final inspection of any buildings or structures. The term "phase" as used here shall mean the following: "The block of building permits drawn on less than the whole project" or "A plan of building construction which indicates blocks of construction of less than the whole project." In each phase the installation of any on or off -site improvements shall be sufficiently completed so as to assure protection from storm or drainage run off, a safe and driveable access for fire and safety, and the ordinary and intended use of buildings or structures. The Building Official, with the concurrence of the City Engineer, may approve any plan or approve a change to an approved plan, which complies with the intent of this policy. 166. Developer shall be required to place construction traffic control in public right-of- way during the construction of off -site improvements. Traffic control devices shall be maintained 24 hours a day 7 days a week as directed by the City Engineer.
167. The Applicant shall submit the signed original Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Certification form to verify consistency of the BPMs shown on the as - built grading plans and landscape plans. In case of inconsistency, the Applicant shall revise the WQMP to match the as -built plans.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 4-17-23

168. A minimum number of one (1) inch caliper/15-gallon, multi -branched trees shall be planted in the parkway within street right-of-way as follows:

Small trees: 25 feet on center
Large trees: 30 feet on center
The variety of tree to be provided is subject to City approval and to be maintained by the property owner. Trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb shall be provided with a linear root barrier.
169. The designated open space landscaping and vineyards identified in the PDP shall be installed.
170. The applicable planting, irrigation, walls, monuments, and other improvements shown on the approved landscaping and irrigation plan shall be installed. 171. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit shall submit a report detailing the percentage of project costs spent in the City of Yucaipa. At a minimum, this report shall contain a list of local businesses/individuals that have been solicited for bids and/or received contracts for materials or services.
172. Developers shall ensure that they recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. 173. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit, commercial properties and multi -family dwellings shall submit a report, including invoices or proof of recovered organic waste product procurement (either through purchase or acquisition) pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18993.1, and submit records to the City's designee. Records shall include the source of product, including name, physical location, and contact information for each entity, operation, or facility from whom the recovered organic waste products were procured, type of product, quantity of product in tons or yards, invoice or other record demonstrating procurement.
174. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Agenda Item No,
City of Yucaipa
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 17, 2022
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, on August 17, 2022, at 6:30 PM.

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Christopher Markarian, Vice Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
Bart Brizzee, Commissioner
Aron Wolfe, Commissioner
ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, City Planner/Planning Manager Madeline Jordan, Assistant .Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel, Associate Engineer
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant
The meeting was called to order at 631 PM, with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Rekstad.

PUBLIC COMMENT
One public comment was received by mail from Bill McEwin for an item not on the agenda.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 17.'WZ

1. SUBJECT: Approve Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 2022

2. SUBJECT; Approve Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2022 ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Rekstad, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-0-0-3, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NO. 1.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Rekstad, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 5-0-0-2, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NO. 2.

OLD BUSINESS:

3. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development. Case No 21-085/GPA./LUCR/DBA: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use district from RM-10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential) an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres with a Density Bonus Agreement to covenant ten (10) percent of the units as low-income affordable; to be located between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. A lot merger will also be processed to consolidate all four parcels into a single lot. APNs 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84. [ITEM CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING).

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission discuss the project, and if the Planning Commission decides to support the approval of this proposal, recommend to the City Council that they:

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41, approving the minor General Plan Amendment Land Use District Change of a property from RM-10M Multiple Residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and
B) Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 412, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and
C) Approve the Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and D) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and Planning Commission Minutes Page
"iugum 11. 2022

F) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, G) Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project.

DISCUSSION: Planning Manager/City Planner Ben Matlock informed the Commissioners that no new information had developed since the August 3, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting.

Planning Manger Ben Matlock remined the Commissioners that Public Comment was closed at the time, however there is the opportunity to re -open if they so choose to.

Commissioner Bart Brizzee and Commissioner Aaron Wolfe both informed staff and the public that they had reviewed the minutes and listened to the audio from the August 3, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Manager Ben Matlock explained to the Commission that is up to the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations to City Council, noting that the General Plan Amendment is ultimately for City Council to make the final decision. Commissioner Bart Brizzee noted that he had concerns with the Project and felt that he would have difficulty meeting Findings 4 & 6 that are required for approval of the General Plan Amendment, Commissioner Rekstad, and Vice Chair Markarian agreed with the concerns over the Project and the appropriateness of the General Plan Amendment for this site. Commissioner Wolfe also noted concurrence with the concerns provided regarding the Amendment but iterated that the multiple - family project that was proposed with the Amendment was an attractive proposal.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-3-0-0, TO DENY AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 based on the inability to meet the required findings for approval.
pal q In W�K
The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

A. Staff Presentation D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary) B. Applicant/Representative Presentation E. Public Hearing Closed C. Public Comments F. Commission Discussion

4. SUBJECT: Case No. 19-116/CUP: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to provide a continuous authorization and holding of Project annual -held events in lieu of currently holding Special Event Permits. The CUP for the Project (aka Pumpkin Factory L.L.C) includes the construction of permanent vendor booth displays that will replace existing temporary structures and would memorialize implementation of traffic -related elements, traffic control provisions, street improvements, and other terms to facilitate the annual -held events. The 64-acre Project site is located at the southeast comer of Live Oak Canyon Road and the I- 10 eastbound on -ramp. APN(S) 0301- 201-38, -39 and 0301-211-11.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
August 17, 2022

RECOMMENDATION.: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and:

A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report.- and
B) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and C) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15323 (Class 23), as well as 15301 (Class 1) and 15311 (Class 11). of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and,
D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Hicks recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest.

Assistant Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Report.

The applicant's representative, Paul Toomey addressed the Commission regarding this project.

Paul Toomey noted that this is an annual event that has been happening for many years, but that it is not a year-round activity. He noted that the completion of this process will give the property owner the certainty that he will be able to have the event every year, while delineating clear requirements, and concluded that this event creates a positive impact to the community.

The applicant's other representative, Jasmine Hancock, also addressed the Commission regarding this project, and noted that conditions are included to ensure that there is a traffic control plan in place.

The applicant, Chris Rameson addressed the Commission regarding this project. Chris noted that he loves the City of Yucaipa and that he's worked hard to make the Pumpkin Patch a nice place for families to visit. He noted that he employs 700 employees during the season, and that by going through this process, he will have the assurance to hold the event, Public Comments: No comments received.
: MOTION BY Commissioner Wolfe, SECOND BY Commissioner Brizzee, CARRIED, 6-0-0-1, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. __tanning Commission Minutes Page 4
AU9.11 I 7. 202'

S. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 20- 136/PDPI,'FDP/TTM 20375): A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County, APNs: 0320-161-08, 09, and 28.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and if the Planning Commission decides to support the approval of this proposal, recommend to the City Council that they:

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-47, approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and
B) Approve Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 20- 136/FDP/TTM 20375), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
C) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and D) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and, E) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

DISC USSIO : Planning Manager/City Planner Ben Matlock presented the Agenda Report. He noted that additional written comments were received and have been added to the packet.

The applicant's representative, Travis Heaps addressed the Commission. Mr. Heaps noted that the development of this site has been in the works for 30 plus years. He emphasized that this was a Planned Development Project and not a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Heaps noted that the density is still consistent with the base density that is permitted, and that because the project is in the hills, the design would maintain the northern end of the property as natural open space. He also noted that their team held a community meeting to help answer questions and concerns, and from the comments that were received at the meeting, they had modified the multi -purpose trail and fencing for the development.

Vice Chair Markarian noted that an issue he has with the Project is with the Planned Development design. He noted that he recognizes that the design serves to implement the viticultural goals of the community, but that the flow and transition from the existing neighborhood to the proposed Planning Commission Minutes Page _5
August 1_. 2027

project with this specific proposal appears too abrupt. He referenced the efforts for the Wine Specific Plan, noting how the proposed land use district locations and development standards were deliberately designed to make a more logical transition from the vacant areas and the surrounding area and asked if potential revisions could be made to improve the transition.

Public Comments: Twenty-three speaker forms were received.

Teri Boon - Yucaipa Ridge Road - She noted that the proposed project is on the main San Andreas fault area and is also a current flood zone. She noted that there will be an issue with the wildlife in the area. She noted that she is not opposed to a project developed on the site but is opposed to less than a 1-acre property and iterated that a minimum of I acre is required if a family wants to grow their own food due a manufactured food crisis, and that families should be able to raise their animals on their property. She also noted that while the nearby winery owner has been a great and helpful neighbor, those visiting the winery are driving down the road too fast and concluded that she is opposed to this project.

Heather Dent - Country Lane - She noted that she has lived in Yucaipa all her life. She noted that she likes the 1-acre lot idea and believes that this proposal presents a sweetheart deal with the developer to retain ownership of half of his property after being allowed to build 51 houses on 12 acres and would allow him to lease back the property for perpetual income. She noted that building 51 homes on 12 acres is not congruent with the General Plan and does not want to see what would appear like a mobile home park in the neighborhood. She loves the idea of vineyards in the area however would like a better presented project with 1-acre minimum lots.

Lucinda Brinks - Diamond Street - She noted that she and her husband built their home and have lived in Yucaipa since 1987. She noted that they were attracted to the rural living of the North Bench and objects the proposed land use change. Additional concerns she had in regard to past fires, mudflows and earthquakes that have called for mandatory evacuations for that area in the past five years.

Joshua Morgan - Fremont Street - He noted that he was representing his four brothers and himself, and wanted to share a young person's perspective. He noted that they previously lived in a track home area and moved to the North Bench noting that he and his sibling are excited to be in the North Bench. He noted that he would not like to see smaller homes built like where he originally lived.

Daniel Morgan - Fremont Street - He noted that he had written a letter that was included in the Packet and read the letter to the Commissioners to reiterate his opposition to the project.

Ramona Etheredge - Ivy Court - She noted that she loves the 1-acre lots and being able to have animals. She also noted that the evacuations they had during the past fires was very scary and could not imagine having additional residents in harm's way from the fires and the floods that from the aftermath. She also noted that the area has low water pressure. Before commenting that she is opposed to the project.

Steve Freeman - Juniper Ave - He noted that traffic is a big concern as well as, a seismic area along the northern side of the project, commenting that this area is not buildable land and therefore should not count towards the development potential. He also referenced that when Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
August I 7, 2022

he purchased his property In 2008, he had met with City Staff, and was informed that that area would remain as 1-acre lots, and therefore opposes to the project.

Ross McGinnis - Azurite Street - He noted he moved to the North Bench 20 years ago, to have a rural lifestyle and that 400 additional vehicles in the area would cause metropolitan traffic conditions that would completely change the atmosphere, and therefore opposes the project.

Alice Ames - Yucaipa Ridge Road - She noted that traffic is a big concern due to there only being one way in and one way out of the neighborhood as well as that the wildlife, such as bears, bobcats, birds, and foxes will all be affected. She noted that this proposed project, is everything the North Bench isn't.

Sherry Todd - Quartz Street - She noted that she has been at her home since 1983 and had at that time always knew she would be on a 1-acre lot, and this proposal is therefore a big surprise to her, and she anticipated it to remain the same. She noted that the current property owner purchased the property in 2014 and should have been aware of the minimum 1-acre ordinance, disagreeing with the comments made at the community meeting, stating that 1-acre lots were not proposed because the profits weren't there. She concluded that money, is not her nor any of her neighbor's problem and would like the project rejected.

Colleen Wang - Quartz Street - She noted that the 52 homes should not be channeled down two streets, and instead should have three streets to work. She commented that the neighborhood does not want this development, and neighbors like herself rides horses and, with the proposed project, won't be able to access the trails. She notes she is not opposed to development but that this should remain with one acre lots.

Hansen Wang - Quartz Street - He noted that the proposed development will restrict his views, traffic is a big cause for concern, and that he shares the same feeling as the rest of his neighbors in opposing the project.

Erik Sahakian - Golden Crown Way - He noted that he is running for the District I council seat and that he is at the meeting to support his friends and community in the North Bench who are against the development of any land for housing that does not support the North Bench's unique beauty. He noted that he lives in Chapman Height, and while he loves his neighborhood noted that the North Bench should not be turned into Chapman Heights. He concluded that housing is necessary and important, but not at the expense of community ideals, and that the North Bench represents the soul of Yucaipa.

Paul Wohlers - Yucaipa Ridge Road - He noted that his concern with the proposed project is from prior seismic trenching that was not correctly compacted, noting that future work will require testing and re -compaction. He also noted concerns with the existing water pressure.

Donna Snodgrass - Walnut Grove Court - She noted that she is the Vice President to the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance and 18 months ago she circulated a petition to stop cluster housing on the North Bench during the initial review of the wine country discussions. She noted that since that time, she was appointed to the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Planning Committee and is currently the Vice Chair, and while learning more about the properties and legal rights, her approach changed to find workable solutions. She noted that the Wine Country Planning Committee is proposing a new zoning that would provide for the agricultural and Planning Commission Minutes Page I
August I 12022

open space features desired, and that Developer and landowner for the Serrano Estates continues that approach and takes it a step further; by committing to grading and planting the entire vineyard area before pulling a single building permit. She stated that she urges and supports for the plan being presented with some of the changes that were brought up by Vice Chair Markarian.

Cesar Roldan - Pendleton Road - He stated that as a general ideal, he is not in favor of cluster housing; nor does he want to see the North Bench fully developed with housing. However, he noted that throughout his career as a realtor he tries to create a win, win approach. He commented that current requirements are not set in stone; and could change due to the pressure for more housing, stating that if nothing is done to preserve the fifty percent of the land for viticulture and open space, the entire land may be lost to development in the future. He concluded by commenting that if this project is not approved, it will be devasting to the future of Yucaipa, and supports the project that is proposed.

Landon Myers - Oak Mesa Drive - He noted that he is the Project Manager for Vines of the Valley, and that since 2020, they have over six thousand vines in the Yucaipa region, He noted that as a representative of the community vineyard installers and grape growers, he supports the proposed project.

Kevin Miskin - Ivy Ave - He noted that the City of Yucaipa does not need more wine but that instead need water. He noted he rejects the proposed project from an engineer's perspective, commenting that the flat and square lots proposed do not blend into the current topography.

He noted that the future development should remain as I -acre, single story custom homes, and therefore opposes the project.

Trevor Leja - Yucaipa Ridge Road - He noted that he appreciates the inclusion of vineyards and generally supports development of the vineyard. He further states that his concerns are with lot sizes and existing road conditions, noting that the proposed Project should maintain one acre lots, and that Yucaipa Ridge Road should be improved along the entire frontage north of Quartz Street as to allow for development in the County area. He concluded that the project is not consistent with rural character of the current neighborhood and is opposed to the project.

Gina Hadder - Palermo Court - She noted that she is here in support for the people opposing the project, commenting that she has lived in Yucaipa for twenty-four years and had purchased her home for the rural feel from the 1-acre lots. She concluded that she has concerns about the noise, light and environmental pollution.

Brian Plein - Ivy Avenue - He noted that he has lived in the North Bench for twenty-two years and that the "one acre one house" should not be changed to keep the rural feel. He concluded that the residents of the North Bench should not be penalized because the developer cannot build fifty-one homes of fifty-one acres.

Kathy Dupper - Fremont St - She noted that her concern is the size of residential lots, commenting that Yucaipa has long been an equestrian community and the lots proposed would be too small for horse ownership. She noted that she opposes the project.

Bob Miller - Crystal Street - He thanked the Planning Commission for their service and for listening to all the concerned residents. He noted that when he thought about retirement, he Planning Commission Minutes
lXUgUSt 17, z01 2
•

wanted to live in a town that was quiet and peaceful, and that he found that in Yucaipa. He noted that the area is special and that he wouldn't want the specialness taken away.

The applicant, Mr. Craig Heaps noted that he read the comments regarding the zone change and wanted to clarify that they are not changing the zone nor doing a General Plan Amendment, but instead using an existing process in the City's Code. He understands that there are compromised areas within the property and that would limit the ability to build 1-acre lots all over the property, commenting that their approach was designed to take advantage of the best parts of the site. He iterated that if this project doesn't work, then nothing will work. He responded to the comment that the project looks square, agreeing that they had some challenges to best make the streets work with the grading, iterating this was not an easy project to put together, but they ultimately have still designed a great project. Mr. Heaps also responded to the comments regarding animal keeping, not that there would not be large animal keeping on these lots and that it was not planned as an equestrian community. He also responded to the comments regarding water, not that there is enough water and sufficient water flow as provided by the -will serve" letters from Yucaipa Valley Water District, and they would be responsible for the infrastructure meeting the required water flow and pressure requirements. He also responded to the traffic concerns, iterating that they will assess the stop signs at and near the Project. Mr. Heaps also provided a response to lot sizes, commenting that part of the goal of the Project is to provide open space and opportunities for vineyards - larger lots would in turn reduce those desired elements.

Vice Chair Markarian, stated that he respectfully disagrees with Mr. Heaps' comment that if this does not work, then nothing will work, Mr. Markarian noted that he is not opposed to development, nor that the general concept presented for this particular project is bad but iterated that additional design improvements should be made to better facilitate the transition of the neighborhood, and suggested that Mr. Heaps work with the neighbors to ensure that the rural feel is maintained as part of the site design. Additional efforts to help bridge the design by modifying the Planned Development standards, like the efforts of the Wine Country Specific Plan, would help him to ultimately support the Project.

Commission Wolfe noted that while he understands what Vice Chair Markarian is saying, the fact is that the neighborhood does not want any development and stated that such efforts would not appeal to those that spoke. Vice Chair Markarian added that strict adherence to one acre lots is not a reasonable solution and ultimately misses important opportunities to preserve key features, but that there may be a better middle ground.

Chair Allgower noted that the community has expressed a desire to support agriculture and wine making in the City, and that they need to make a decision that is good for the community.

Commissioner Hicks noted that he has lived in the City for close to 40 years, and that he lives in the transition between large lots, up to 40 acres, in Wildwood Canyon and residential lots that are smaller than those that are proposed. He noted that transitions must occur somewhere, and he likes his large lot neighbors as well as his smaller lot neighbors and acknowledged that the smaller lot neighbors like to have the proximity to the rural areas so they can too enjoy the area. He also noted that the North Bench used to be much larger lots for chicken ranches and has transitioned to what we have now because of prior developers. Opportunities to preserve open space areas free from development is a better way to go.

Manning Commission Minutes Page 9
Auguil 1'. 202'

Commissioner Rekstad felt that the Project represents a clash of cultures, going from the larger lots that have a "scruffier" appearance to 51 lots that are likely to be highly manicured. He felt that the Commission should honor the wishes of the existing neighborhood. He also noted that the applicant's financial investment for the site and property is not a deciding factor for the Commission to consider.

The Public Hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Wolfe clarified that this project takes an approach that is allowed by the City's codes, and Commissioner Rekstad and Vice Chair Markarian responded that while the process is allowed, they should find something that works best to which Commission Wolfe responded that he does like the Project.

Commissioner Bart Brizzee addressed and thanked the public for attending, as he has not experienced such a big outpouring like this and their willingness to stay until 11:30 p.m., Mr.

Brizzee clarified the role of the Planning Commission and standards they have to follow, iterating that their role is not to determine which projects they do or don't like, but rather how does the Project meet or not meet the policy directive that has been established, and this project in particular will need Council's final approval whole will consider all of the goals they are trying to achieve for the community. Mr. Brizzee noted that if this was just a zoning, then it would be an easy call for him. However, the level of opposition to the project suggests that the 'implementation of this tool and the specific standards that have been proposed may not be appropriate from his perspective but noted that it is ultimately a call for the City Council to make.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Wolfe, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 34-0-0, TO APPROVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. Motion Fails and project is not recommended for approval.

6. SUBJECT: Case No. 22-053/CUP/MNV: A Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a construction services site that includes a 3,900 square foot material and equipment storage facility, three (.3) 200 square foot on -site storage containers and a future 570 square foot modular office, and includes a Minor Variance request for a 40 percent reduction in the side yard setback located at a vacant parcel on California Street. APN:0319-212-09.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and:

A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Design, and conceptual landscaping subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report, B) Adopt the Findings for the Conditional Use Permit as contained in this Agenda Report; and
C) Adopt the Minor Variance Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
AUguS[ 17, 1022

D) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5) and Section 153 )32 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and,
E) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISU
Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the project.

Planner Christian Farmer noted that several notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of this project and only one verbal comment was received by the neighbor directly to the south who indicated their support for the project.

The applicant's representative, Steve Ritchey, addressed the Commission and requested that the project be approved. He noted that he was available to answer any technical question any of them might have.

Public Comments: None.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 7-0-0-0, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next Plaiming Commission Meeting is scheduled for September 7, 2022.

Ben Matlock noted that there will be a Planning Commissioner Training in Rancho Cucamonga on August 26, 2022, being hosted by Institute for Local Government.

The meeting adjourned at 11:46 PM.

Bejijmin Matlock Allgower
Plan
ning Manager/City Planner Chair of the Pantxi , a Commission Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
August i 1 1022

Agenda Item No.

City of Yucaipa
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of September 12, 2022
A Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, on September 12, 2022, at 6:00 PM.

PRESENT: David Avila, Mayor
Greg Bogh, Councilmember
Bobby Duncan, Councilmember
Jon Thorp, Councilmember
Ray Casey, City Manager
Jennifer Crawford, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
Amy Greyson, Assistant City Attorney
ABSENT: Justin Beaver, Mayor Pro Tern

CONVENE CITY COUNCIL
The meeting was opened by Captain Landen with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Pickleball Ambassador and former Councilmember Diane Smith.

City Manager Casey requested that Agenda Item No. 17 be removed from the Agenda and brought back to Council at a future City Council meeting and announced that a revised Agenda Item No 24 was distributed to Council and made available to the public.

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO REMOVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 FROM THE AGENDA AND TO BRING THE ITEM BACK TO COUNCIL AT A FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Richard Frost, Yucaipa, stated his concerns with the Omnitrans transit system and the impact of over -crowding conditions due to the number of student riders that utilize Omnitrans.

Irene P. stated her concerns with the negative impacts that 5G, wireless, cell towers and LED lighting have on nature and the environment.

Jo Sutt, Yucaipa, stated that there will be a few years to assess how the recent biennial review of the City's Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Program will affect park residents and owners. Ms. Sutt spoke about the conditions of various mobilehome parks, and the tenants living in the parks and encouraged Councilmembers to attend "meet and greet" gatherings at various mobilehome parks.

City Council Minutes Page I of 19
lutps://yticaipa.sharepoint.cons/sices/gencraiscrviccstsliared documents/gencral services_city clerk/ n city clerk files/minules k ezcerpWminutes/2022/city council/20220912.dom

CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Avila asked if there were any Consent Agenda items to be removed for discussion. No items were removed for discussion.

1. SUBJECT: APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve City Council Minutes of August 22, 2022.

2. SUBJECT: EXTENDING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IMPACT ON THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council review the need to continue the local emergency, thereby recognizing the continued existence of perilous conditions as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic impact on the Emergency Medical Services system.

3. SUBJECT: MONTHLY TREASURER'S REPORT: MAY 2022
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council receive and file the Monthly Treasurer's Report for May 2022.

4. SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (ORDINANCE NO. 350) INITIATED BY THE CITY AMENDING VOLUME II (DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE YUCAIPA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4 (LAND USE MODIFICATIONS) OF DIVISION 5 (OVERLAY DISTRICTS)

TO ESTABLISH A COLLEGE VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO ADOPT

OVERLAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AS UPDATED IN 2016.

RECOMMENDATION: That City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 350 initiated by the City to amend Chapter 4 (Land Use Modifications) of Division 5 (Overlay Districts) to establish a College Village Overlay District and to adopt Overlay District Guidelines consistent with the General Plan as updated in 2016.

5. SUBJECT: BIENNIAL REVIEW OF MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION

ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 413, amending Sections 15.20.010, 15.20.020, 15.20.030, 15.20.050, 15.20.060,

15.20.073, 15.20.080, and 15.20.140 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code ("YMC") Regarding the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Program and the 2021-2022 Biennial Review

6. SUBJECT: 2023 MOBILEHOME PARK ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-51, rescinding Resolution No. 2021-52 and amending Resolution No. 2011-52 Section 2.0007(B)(C)(D), City Council Minutes Page 2 of 19
Mips //yucaipa.sltarepoint.corn/siles/generalscrviees/shared documenWgeneral scrvices_cily clerk✓@ city clerk files/minutes K excerpts/minutes/2022/city council/20220912.docs

establishing the 2023 annual registration fee for the enforcement of the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

7. SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - LEFT TURN PHASING TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PROJECT — PROJECT NO. 11142 RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

Amend the FY2022/2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) by adding the amount of $85,000 in Highway Safety Improvement Program grant funds to the Left Turn Phasing Traffic Signal Modification at Various Locations Project — Project No. 11142 (Project); and

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Alfaro Communications Construction Inc. (Contractor) for the Project in the amount of $21,440.21 for the replacement of the damaged concrete traffic signal pole foundation at the intersection of Oak Glen Road and Avenue E for a new proposed revised contract amount of $517,532.20.

8. SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — PROJECT NO. 11143
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Animal Pest Management for the Pest Management Program — Project No. 11143 in the annual amount of $900 ($75/month) for pest management services at Cal Fire/Oak Glen Station No. 555, for a revised annual total contract in the amount of $7,662.

9. SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT WORK — 2021/2022 STREET STRIPING PROGRAM - PROJECT NO. 11157
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

1. Accept the contract work completed by Superior Pavement Markings, Inc. in the amount of $65,261 for the 2021/2022 Street Striping Program- Project No. 11157; and

2. Authorize the recordation of the Notice of Completion for the project.

10. SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT WORK — 2020/2021 & 2021/2022 STREET REHABILITATION PROGRAMS- PROJECT NO. 11152
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

1. Accept the contract work completed by Matich Corporation in the amount of $2,716,221 for the 2020/2021 & 2021/2022 Street Rehabilitation Programs- Project No. 11152; and

2. Authorize the recordation of the Notice of Completion for the projects; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-53, approving the revised Measure I Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for FY2021/2022 through FY2025/2026.

City Council Minutes Page 3 of 19
Imps'/lyucaipa.sliarepoint.com/sites/gencralserviccs/simrcd documenWgeucral services city clerk/Qa city clerk files/minutes 3 excerpWminutes/2022/city council/20220912.docx

11. SUBJECT: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION FROM LIVE OAK CANYON INVESTMENTS, LLC LOCATED AT 32303 LIVE OAK CANYON ROAD; APN: 0301- 201-38
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

Accept an Offer of Dedication for Road and Utility Purposes from Live Oak Canyon Investments, LLC on APN 0301-201-38; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the necessary documents to complete the acquisition process.

12. SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT - TRAFFIC CALMING- INSTALLATION OF ASPHALT SPEED HUMPS AND STRIPING- PROJECT NO. 11177
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

1. Award and authorize the Mayor to execute a contract in the amount of $38,400 with Hardy & Harper Paving, Inc., of Lake Forest, CA for the Traffic Calming- Installation of Asphalt Speed Humps and Striping- Project No. 11177; and

2. Approve the amount of $5,000 for construction contract contingency and the amount of $4,000 for construction contract administration/inspection costs for a total construction budget in the amount of $47,400; and

3. Approve the Plans and Specifications prepared for this project.

13. SUBJECT: FONEL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (BOGH DBA): A DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT FOR (CASE NO. 21- 034/CUP/DBA/ARC/LUCR) TO ALLOW A 100% INCREASE IN LAND DENSITY AND PERMIT A 32-UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT ON A 1.97-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 12301 3RD STREET; APN: 0319-351-02
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) for the Bogh Senior Housing Project which will set forth the reporting requirements and covenants that are necessary to ensure that the target senior rental units associated with Case No. 21-034/CUP/DBA/ARC/LUCR remain available as intended by the original density bonus request that was associated with the approved entitlement.

14. SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2023 CALIFORNIA FIRE FOUNDATION GRANT RECOMMENDATION: That City Council accept the Fiscal Year 2023 California Fire Foundation Grant awarded to the Yucaipa Fire Department in the amount of $15,000.

A TI N: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NO.1 THROUGH 12 AND CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.

City Council Minutes Page 4 of 19
https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/generaiscrvices/sharcd doatments/general services_city, clerk/rer city clerk files/minutes S escerpts/minutes/2022/city council/20220912docs

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED, 3-0-1-1 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBER BOGH ABSTAINED), TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO.13.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER BUSINESS (REPORTS)
Mayor Avila reported that he and City Manager Casey attended the League of California Cities Conference last week. Mayor Avila stated that he learned that the State does not have a plan to provide enough electricity to sustain the electrification that Governor Newsom wants. Mayor Avila further reported that he attended a presentation pertaining to outdoor dining that addressed some of the challenges that many communities have experienced. Mayor Avila added that there is a movement for local governments to retain local control.

City Manager Casey reported that the session pertaining to ARPA funding and potential alternatives was illustrative and that the collaborative discussions outside of the meetings regarding county/city initiatives were helpfiil.

Councilmember Bogh reported that the City's first 911 Memorial Event was well attended and thanked staff, Mayor Avila, Supervisor Rowe, Senator Bogh and CalFire for their contributions to the Memorial.

Mayor Avila reported that a Flag Repository is now located at City Hall and discussed the process and tradition of properly retiring flags. Mayor Avila explained that the Repository will ensure that the traditions and ceremony are utilized in the retirement of the flags.

Mayor Avila further reported that staff will be presenting options to City Council for a 911 Memorial in the coming months.

POSSIBLE ACTION ON PENDING LEGISLATION
City Manager reported that the Assembly Bill regarding the Fast -Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act had been signed by Governor Newsom.

15. SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 1186 (WIENER) — MEDICINAL CANNABIS PATIENTS'

RIGHT OF ACCESS ACT
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council review and approve a letter of opposition for Senate Bill 1186 (Wiener), the Medicinal Cannabis Patients' Right of Access Act which, on and after January 1, 2024, would prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing any regulation that prohibits the retail sale by delivery within the local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers by medicinal cannabis businesses.

DISCUSSION: City Manager Casey presented the Agenda Report.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

City Council Minutes

hops://yucaipi.shorepoint.coin/sites/gencralservicestsliared documents/general services —city clerk/n city clerk Gles/minutes & excerpts/minutes/2022/city eouncil/20220912.docs

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

16. SUBJECT: LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve an amendment to the Law Enforcement Services Contract (Schedule A) between the City of Yucaipa and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, for a total annual service contract in an amount not to exceed $12,627,007, less the annual personnel credit in the amount of $621,182, for a total net contract amount of not to exceed $12,005,825 and allocate an additional $275,569 from Fund-46 State Law Enforcement Grant for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.

Councilmember Thorp recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.

DISCUSSION: City Manager Casey presented the Agenda Report.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTI N: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, CARRIED, 3-0-2-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER

AND COUNCILMEMBER THORP ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION.

18. SUB.IECT: CHANGE ORDERS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT PURCHASES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Order No. 1 with Econolite Systems for the Traffic Signal Maintenance Program in the Amount of $21,400 to cover additional costs for necessary traffic signal repairs for a revised total purchase order in the amount of $114,937.72 for FY2021/2022; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Order No. 1 with Allison Mechanical for the HVAC Maintenance Program in the amount of $7,300 to cover additional costs for necessary HVAC repairs for a revised total purchase order in the amount of $41,268 for FY2021/2022; and

3. Authorize the City manager to approve a Change Order with Allstar Fire Equipment for the Self Contained Breathing apparatus (SCBA) Air Pack Harness Testing and Emergency Breathing Safety Systems (EBSS) in the amount of $10,150.88 for required updated equipment for a revised total purchase order in the amount of $30,150.88 for FY2021/2022; and

4. Authorize City Manager to approve a Change Order with Fire Apparatus Solutions for the routine maintenance of engine E552A in the amount of $1,837.34 to Cover City Council Minutes Page 6 of 19
https://yucaipi.sharepoint.comisitcs/gencralservices/shared documents/general services —city clerk/@ city clerk ftles/minutes & excerpts/minutes/2022/city council/20220912.doex •

additional costs of required repairs to engine E552A for a revised total purchase order in the amount of $26,839.34 for FY2021/2022
DISCUSSION: Director of Development Services/City Engineer Preciado presented the Agenda Report.

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

19. SUBJECT: PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR TYLER MUNIS FINANCE

SYSTEM PHASE III, HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PHASE II AND

ENTERPRISE PERMITTING AND LICENSING SOFTWARE PHASE I

IMPLEMENTATION
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence LLC, in the amount of $222,370 for Project Management services for Tyler Munis Finance System Phase III, Human Capital Management Phase II and Enterprise Permitting and Licensing Software Phase I Implementation.

DISCUSSION: Assistant City Manager Crawford presented the Agenda Report.

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

20. SUBJECT: FIVE WINDS COUNTRY MUSIC FESTIVAL WRAP-UP
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

1. Receive and file the Five Winds Country Music Festival Wrap-up Report; and

2. Approve the 2023 Five Winds Country Music Festival.

DISCUSSION: Director of Community Services Wolfe presented the Agenda Report.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

21. SUBJECT: REDUCING THE RISK OF FIRES ASSOCIATED WITH HOMELESS

ENCAMPMENTS IN HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

Review the need to prohibit homeless encampments in Very High Fire Hazard Severity City Council Minutes

pups://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/generalservices/shared documents/general services —city clerk/@ city clerk riles/minutes R excerpts/minWes/2022/city council/20220912.docx

Zones; and

2. Direct Yucaipa Fire Department in collaboration with the Yucaipa Police Department to ensure that Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones remain free of encampments; and

3. Find that the proposed actions are not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since they are activities that are excluded from the definition of a project by section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and section 15378(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed actions are organizational or administrative activities of government which will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. In the alternative, find that the actions are exempt from CEQA as specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency pursuant to section 21080(b)(4) and section 15269(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

DISCUSSION: City Manager Casey presented the Agenda Report.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

CTI : MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

22. SUBJECT: EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT — BREWCAIPA LLC—APN 0303-253-41
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council
Approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Brewcaipa, LLC to negotiate the potential purchase of a portion of City -owned property identified as APN 0303-253-41; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to complete the agreement process.

DISCUSSION: Housing and Economic Development Analyst Miller presented the Agenda Report.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

CA TION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

23. SUBJECT: PICKLEBALL FACILITY UPDATE — YUCAIPA PICKLEBALL FACILITY, YUCAIPA PICKLEBALL COURT DESIGN PROJECT — PROJECT NO. 11150
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

City Council Minutes Page 8 of 19
htips-!/yuaipa.shorepoint.can/siles/generalservices/shared documenls/pneral services —city clerktoi city clerk files/minutes & excapts/minutes/2022/city council/20220912.dots

1. Approve the revised Conceptual Pickleball Master Plan for the 7"' Street Pickleball facility and any revisions deemed appropriate; and

2. Approve Phase I of the 7"' Street Pickleball facility and any revisions deemed appropriate.

DISCUSSION: Public Works Analyst Gutjahr presented the Agenda Report.

Diane Smith, representing the Pickleball Board, stated that the Board believes that the increased Pickleball activity at the 7"' Street Park has helped to deter vandalism and that over the past year and a half, the players have not had any confrontation with anyone and that they (for the most part) feel safe. Ms. Smith added that although the 7"' Street Park Facility was not their first choice, it is reasonable and attainable and noted that the Board has looked at the plans and is comfortable and feels like this is the only reasonable solution.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL AND CONVENE HOUSING AUTHORITY
City Council adjourned. Housing Authority convened. (Housing Authority proceedings are contained in separate Minutes)

CONVENE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
City Council reconvened.

24. SUBJECT: EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT (ENA)- FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED - A PORTION OF APN 0303-131-05 & A PORTION OF APN 0303-131- 63 (NW CORNER OF YUCAIPA BOULEVARD AND 5TH STREET) (YUCAIPA

BUSINESS INCUBATOR CENTER)
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

Approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Fountainhead Shrugged to negotiate the potential purchase of City -owned property located at Northwest corner of Yucaipa Blvd and 5"' Street and authorize the City Manager to execute all related documents and make any necessary non -substantive changes;—arrd City Council Minutes Page 9 of 19
hupsl/yucaip3.sliarepoint.com/sites/gencralservices/sliared documenWgeneral services city clerk/@ city clerk files/minutes & ezcerpts/minutes/2022/eity council/20220912.daz

DISCUSSION: Housing and Economic Development Analyst Miller presented the Agenda Report.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THORP, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, CARRIED, 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (AS AMENDED).

ADJOURN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Housing Authority adjourned.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

25. SUBJECT: CASE NO. 22-063/GPA: CITY OF YUCAIPA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (CONTINUED FROM THE 812212022 CITY

COUNCIL MEETING)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and review the Planning Commission's recommendation to:

1. Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 407, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa to include the change the land use designation for a property located at the southeast coiner of Oak Glen Road and Avenue E; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-20, adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to the General Plan; and

3. Adopt an Addendum to the 2016 Yucaipa General Plan Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and

4. Adopt the Findings as contained in the Agenda Report and related Ordinances and Resolutions; and

5. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination subsequent to certification of the Addendum to the 2016 General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and,

6. Authorize and direct the City Manager and Planning Manager/City Planner to make any technical or clerical revisions of clarifications to the Housing Element as may be required by HCD in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law DISCUSSION: Mayor Avila opened the Public Hearing Item No. 25. Planning Manager/City Plamler Matlock presented the Agenda Report.

Public Comment
None
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 19
6ups //yuciip.i.sliarepoint.com/sitestgencralserviccs/sliared documents/general services city clerk/ r, city clerk files/minutes & escerpts/minutes/20221city council/20220912 does

Mayor Avila closed the Public Hearing.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

TI N: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP,CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

26. SUBJECT: CASE NO. 21-045/GPA/LUCR/MJV/DBA/ARC (RIVERWALK SENIOR DEVELOPMENT): A MINOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A PROPERTY FROM RM-72C (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO RM-24 (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL), A DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT (DBA) TO QUALIFY FOR A 25% INCREASE IN

LAND DENSITY, A LAND USE COMPLIANCE REVIEW WITH ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 150-UNIT, THREE STORY, AGE -RESTRICTED SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 55 YEARS AND OLDER, WITH TWO (2) MONUMENT SIGNS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE 5-ACRE SITE, AND TWO (2) MAJOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHTY (80) PERCENT OF THE 150-UNITS TO BE 1-BEDROOM IN LIEU OF THIRTY-FIVE (35) PERCENT, AND FOR ONE (1) BEDROOM UNITS TO PROVIDE SEVENTY-SIX (76) SQUARE FEET OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IN LIEU OF THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET REQUIRED FOR GROUND FLOOR UNITS AND THE ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET REQUIRED FOR ABOVE GROUND UNITS, LOCATED AT 12836 3RD STREET, APN: 0319-112-03.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-40, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a single parcel (APN: 0319-112-03) from RM-72C (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and

2. Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 411, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and

3. Approve Density Bonus Request and Land Use Compliance Review No. 21-045, and Variances subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and

4. Adopt the Findings as contained in tlus Agenda Report; and

5. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and

6. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and,

7. Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project.

City Council Minutes Page 1 I of 19
hops //yucaipa.sharepoint.coin/siles/generalserviees/sirared documenWgeneral services city clerk/ rJ city clerk riles/minutes & excerptslminutes/2022/eily council/202209I1docx

DISCUSSION: Mayor Avila opened the Public Hearing Item No. 26. Assistant Planner Jordan presented the Agenda Report.

Public Comment
Judy Main, Yucaipa, spoke in opposition to changing the General Plan to allow high density housing and requested that Council consider changes to the General Plan seriously as this affects the surrounding neighborhoods.

Alec McKinney, Yucaipa, spoke in opposition to changing the General Plan and stated that the housing crisis is caused by the same investors that want to build three-story homes in our City. Mr. McKinney stated that he is not against the development of this project but opposes the three-story structures.

Jon McKinney, Yucaipa, spoke in opposition to high density housing and commented that once you start building high density homes, it will continue.

Arthur Walter, Yucaipa, spoke in opposition to a proposed project on Second Street and addressed his concerns pertaining to the negative impact this would have on Calimesa Elementary School and traffic.

Mayor Avila closed the Public Hearing.

Planning Manager/City Planner Matlock noted that the last speaker spoke about a different project that is not scheduled for tonight's meeting and noted that an opportunity to speak about that project will be made available once the meeting notice has been sent out.

Applicant Craig Heaps, Yucaipa, stated that this is a market rate Senior project, provided a list of the project amenities, and noted that there is a ten percent affordable low-income component in this project as well.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THORP, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

City Council recessed. City Council reconvened.

27. SUBJECT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF YUCAIPA 52, LLC - (CASE NO. 22-122/APP) AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OF CASE NO. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375, A

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT INCLUDES A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 20375)/F1NAL

DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SERRANO ESTATES PROJECT, WHICH WILL ESTABLISH 51 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON PARCELS GREATER THAN 12,000 SQUARE FEET, SEVERAL LETTERED LOTS FOR WATER QUALITY BASINS, AND A 27-ACRE REMAINDER LOT THAT City Council Minutes Page 12 of 19
https:llyunipa.sliarepoint.com/siteslgeneralservices/shared documenWgeneral services —city clerk/@ city clerk files/minutes & excerpts/minutes/202Jcity council/20220912 docx

WOULD INCLUDE SPACE FOR VINEYARDS AS WELL AS 13 ACRES OF

PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, LOCATED ON THREE EXISTING PARCELS TOTALING 52 ACRES ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF YUCAIPA RIDGE ROAD

DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE CITY LIMITS TO UNINCORPORATED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. APNS: 0320-161-08, 09, AND 28
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council conduct a public hearing and consider the appeal request regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of the Serrano Estates' Planned Development Project. Should the City decide to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the Project, the following motion is provided:

1. Deny the appeal request and adopt Resolution 2022-47 denying Preliminary Development Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and

2. Deny Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 20- 136/FDP/TTM 20375), as inconsistent with the Development Code (as there would be no PDP); and

3. Adopt the Findings for denial as contained in this Agenda Report; and

4. Find the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines.

As part of the denial, the City Council can also provide feedback on the PDP standards to allow the applicant to make changes to the Project that may be ultimately supported, and this direction would be included as part of the review of a new and amended Project for the consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council.

If the City Council decides to approve the Project, the following motion is provided:

Approve the appeal request and adopt Resolution No. 2022-47, approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and

2. Approve Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 20- 136/FDP/TTM 20375), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and

3. Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and

4. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and

5. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

The City Council also has the discretion to amend the Project in whole or in part, and can make revisions, subj ect to concurrence with the applicant, to provide a project that would meet the required findings for approval.

City Council Minutes

Mips'//yueaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/generalserviccs/shared documents/general services —city clerk/@ city clerk flies/minutes & exeerpls/minules/2022/cily council/20220912.d0cx

DISCUSSION: Mayor Avila opened the Public Hearing Item No. 27. Planning Manager/City Planner Matlock presented the Agenda Report.

Applicant/Representative Presentation
Applicant Representative Paul Toomey provided the history of the project site, addressed the series of constraints that the site has, and noted that the benefit of being able to modify the development standards produces an outcome that balances the natural site and the objectives of the developer. Mr. Toomey provided additional information about the proposed project and spoke about the Wine Country Land Use Plan, the Housing Element, the housing crisis, and State laws.

Councilmember Bogh stated that he was never contacted by the Applicant and disclosed that someone (he does not know who this was) went to his place of business in Highland and brought the project up to his Operations Manager.

Mayor Avila disclosed that he attended a community meeting and listened to the presentation by Applicant Heaps and that he never had any communications with the applicant or the representatives.

Councilmember Duncan disclosed that he also attended the community meeting with Mayor Avila and listened to the presentation by Applicant Heaps and added that both he and Mayor Avila serve on the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Planning Committee and that he has had conversations with Premium Land Development Applicant Heaps (who also serves on this Committee) and the Meridian landowner (who also serves on this Committee). Councilmember Duncan further disclosed that he has discussed this project with a lot of people and that he has no financial interest in this project.

Councilmember Thorp disclosed that he had a brief discussion with the Developer three or four weeks ago and that the Developer let him know that this project had been denied by the Planning Commission and that an appeal was going to be filed with the City.

Applicant Heaps requested a continuance for the vote until all five members of City Council are in attendance.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACT -TON: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, FAILED DUE TO A

LACK OF A SECOND, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

Public Comment
Written public comment for Agenda Item No. 27 was distributed to the City Council and made available to the public.

Ross McGinnis, Yucaipa, stated his concerns with additional traffic on his street.

City Council Minutes Page 14 of 19
hups//yueaipa.sharepoinl.com/sites/generalservices/sltared documents/general services —city clerk/@ city clerk files/minutes 8 excerpts/minutes/2022/city council/20220912.docx

Nino Valmassoi, Yucaipa, stated that he does not want the Developer to use his land as an easement in any way.

Andreas Blaser, Yucaipa, stated that the General Plan should not be amended for the sake of one developer.

Pierre Assaf, Yucaipa, referenced Assembly Bill 9 (The California Home Act), and stated his concerns that the homes would not keep the look of the surrounding area and would be in a high fire hazard zone.

Matt Underwood, Yucaipa, cited a section of the General Plan and questioned the proposed grouping of smaller lot sizes and vineyards.

John Reece, Yucaipa, stated his concerns with this project and infrastructure (such as water, roads, etc.) and requested that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project.

Sherry Todd, Yucaipa, stated her concerns with the vague size of the lots for 51 homes, reduced water pressure, and increased traffic.

Lucinda Brinks, Yucaipa, stated that both she and her husband oppose this development.

Hansen Wang, Yucaipa, stated his concerns with the proposed development and expressed the need to grow should be done appropriately.

Colleen Wang, Yucaipa, stated her support for the winery concept but not at the expense of high -density cluster housing units, noted that the lack of water pressure is a big issue in the area, and stated that the area should remain rural.

Kristine Mohler, Yucaipa, stated that the City's General Plan is a roadmap on how Yucaipa should be in 10 or 20 years and that the proposed project is not appropriate for this type of area. Ms. Mohler stated that this area is pristine, and we need to keep it that way.

Donna Snodgrass, Yucaipa, stated her support for the project and noted that does not mean she opposes her neighbors on the North Bench. Ms. Snodgrass stated that she and her husband don't want new homes built on the North Bench, but that the State is dictating what cities are being restricted to. Ms. Snodgrass identified options for City Council's consideration.

Joshua Morgan, Yucaipa, representing his four brothers and himself, stated that he and his brothers recently moved to the North Bench and cited the benefits of the area. Mr. Morgan requested that the City protect this area and keep the properties big and not small like where he came from.

Daniel Morgan, Yucaipa, stated that the development of lots that are less than one -acre do not reflect the atmosphere and culture of the North Bench and requested that the City Council stand up for residents and outsiders that love this community and preserve what has been created by not approving this development.

City Council Minutes Page 15 of 19
Mips:/Iyucup.i.sharcpoint.coin/sitcslgcncralservices/sharcd documents/gcncral services —city clerk/0il city clerk lilcs/minutcs & cxccrpts/minuics/2022/city council/20220912.docx •

Cesar Roldan, Yucaipa, stated that he opposes any development on the North Bench but that he is also a realist and understands that it is inevitable that the land will be developed.

Mr. Roldan requested that the City Council consider this project because the proposal preserves some of the rural area.

Ray Snodgrass, Yucaipa, stated that he and his wife submitted written public comment on this item and stated that the battlefield is not in this Council Chamber, it is in Sacramento, and the City and County leaders have lost a lot of latitude because of the laws that have been passed. Mr. Snodgrass stated that this project provides an opportunity to start saving our land.

Heather Wells, Yucaipa, stated that the Applicant chose to ignore the zoning of the area and has requested special zoning. Ms. Wells stated that this area of Yucaipa is zoned to maintain the rural lifestyle and stated her concerns with the negative impacts this project would bring.

Kevin Miskin, Yucaipa, speaking on behalf of himself and two of his neighbors, stated that he rejects the notion that we just lay back and let the State ride right over us. Mr. Miskin stated that they want the Developer to comply with the RL-1 zoning, reduce the lighting, and honor the natural topography of the land.

Ramona Etheredge, Yucaipa, stated that the proposed development violates the constitutional rights to happiness and that going along with this will establish a precedence that takes away the resident's rights.

Stephan West, Yucaipa, stated his opposition to the project and questioned if the vineyards get turned over to housing in the future, would that land be subject to smaller sized lots.

Heather Dent, Yucaipa, stated that open space is not jamming 51 homes on 26-acres, and addressed her concerns with the future of the open space in the North Bench. Ms. Dent stated her desire to keep these properties one -acre minimum.

Darlene Hoshek, Yucaipa, spoke in opposition to the proposed development and stated that she moved from rural Riverside, which is long gone, to the North Bench, and expressed her desire to preserve Yucaipa by keeping it the way it is.

Jack Moser, Yucaipa, stated that he and his wife have lived in Yucaipa for 62 years, love the open spaces, and desire to keep Yucaipa rural.

Brandi Hickman, Yucaipa, stated her support for the proposed project and the wineries.

Ms. Hickman requested that the City Council consider approving this project not only to bring in new homes, but to help support local small businesses and future wineries.

Andrea Urbas, Yucaipa, stated her credentials as an AICP Certified Planner, Certified Environmental Planner, Certified Urban Designer, Educator, and Manager, and stated her support for the proposed development, noted the positive attributes of the development, and encouraged the City Council to approve the project.

City Council Minutes Page 16 of 19
Mips;//yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/generalserviccs/shared documents/general services city clerk/@ city clerk riles/minutes & escerpls/minutes/2022/city council/20220912 dots

Sebastian Mercado, Yucaipa, stated that he is new to Yucaipa and chose the area because of the landscape and the inviting and warm community. Mr. Mercado spoke in support of the proposed development and stated that it may help to bring stimulation to the local economy and benefit the community.

Travis Heaps, Yucaipa, stated that he believes this will be a beautiful project with the combination of agriculture, the hillside, and maintaining the same density. Mr. Heaps spoke about the City's General Plan, the definition of the word "rural", and stated the benefits the project could bring to the community.

Paul Wohler, Yucaipa, stated that the North Bench is one of the last truly open spaces in Yucaipa and if it is developed up to the mountains, it will look like a mass housing track and completely lose its character. Mr. Wohler stated that the proposed development does not meet the one -acre zoning in the North Bench.

Deborah Davidson, Yucaipa, stated that this area is zoned on the outskirts of Yucaipa for one -acre lots next to a wildlife corridor that is undeveloped. Ms. Davidson addressed her concerns with the close proximity of the fire hazard area and the lack of exits from the community in the event of evacuations and stated her opposition to the proposed development.

Patty Ingram, Yucaipa, stated that this project has many drawbacks including earthquake faults, hillsides, and blue line streams and stated that the approval of this project cannot be made because the proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan. Ms.

Ingram stated that the plan is inconsistent with various policies and does not integrate with the surrounding properties or carry out the intention of a planned development. Ms. Ingram requested that City Council deny the project.

Preston Todd, Yucaipa, stated that he and his wife are the owners of North Cork Vineyard and Winery in Yucaipa. Mr. Todd stated that housing and development are coming to the North Bench and emphasized the need to maintain our agriculture, open spaces, and nature.

Mr. Todd stated that our leaders must protect the wine industry and our open spaces while keeping in mind the rights of the developers and that this project will act as a model for future development.

Jeff Kreidel, Yucaipa, spoke in support of the proposed development and stated that this project preserves half of it as open space and agriculture. Mr. Kreidel stated that if this land is developed as one -acre lots there will be no open space with this project.

Robin Miskin, Yucaipa, speaking on behalf of herself and two of her neighbors, stated that she appreciates the developer's efforts to create this development, but it does not belong on the North Bench. Ms. Miskin stated that the land is zoned for RL-1 and requested that City Council consider that the City does not owe anyone a return on their investment and to think about the citizens.

Amy Agadoni, Yucaipa, stated that she and her family relocated to the North Bench from lower Yucaipa less than six months ago because of the rural one -acre lots and asked that the City Council maintain the integrity of the North Bench with minimum one -acre lots.

City Council Minutes Page 17 of 19
helps://yucaipa.sharepoint.corn/sites/gencralserviccs/shared documenWgeneral scrvices_city clerk/@ city clerk files/minutes & excerpts/minutes/2022/city councilP10220912.docx

Shannon Estrada, Yucaipa, stated that she loves the rural living on the North Bench and summarized the reasons that she and her husband chose to raise their children there. Ms.

Estrada stated that the growth of Yucaipa can be accomplished if it is done the right way.

Trevor Leja, Yucaipa, stated his support of the vision for vineyards and small businesses and stated his opposition to the lot sizes of the proposed development. Mr. Leja noted that the project is inconsistent with existing development standards and there needs to be a compromise. Mr. Leja requested Council's support of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project.

Bill Tilbury, Yucaipa, stated his support for the proposed development because of the proposed open areas and noted that he would rather have this development than having 52 homes spread all over the hills and no open space.

Tony Matlock, Yucaipa, stated that he has served on the Wine Country Committee for the past two years and reported that the Committee has been trying to find ways to support open space agricultural vineyards. Mr. Matlock encouraged embracing new ideas and setting standards for what we want for the future.

Applicant Rebuttal
Applicant Representative Paul Toomey stated that the information provided in the agenda packet includes an Initial Study report and a Mitigated Negative Declaration report and that the reports indicate there are no significant impacts and no impacts that cannot be mitigated, which have been addressed as part of this project. Mr. Toomey also noted that the vineyard is a commitment between the landowner and the winery. Mr. Toomey addressed questions raised by Council.

Mayor Avila closed the Public Hearing.

After Council discussion, the following Motion was made:

AC
TI N: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, FAILED 2-2-1-0 (MAYOR AVILA AND
COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN VOTED NO; MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER
ABSENT), TO (1) DENY THE APPEAL REQUEST AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-47 DENYING PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SERRANO ESTATES PROJECT; AND (2) DENY FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.20375 (CASE NO.20-136/FDP/TTM 20375),

AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (AS THERE WOULD BE NO PDP); AND (3) ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AS CONTAINED IN THIS AGENDA REPORT; AND (4) FIND THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15061(4) AND 15270 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

After further discussion, the following Motion was made:

City Council Minutes Page 18 of 19
helps.//yucaipa.sharepoint.corn/sites/generalservices/shared documenuIgeneral services city clerk/@ city clerk files/minutes K escerpts/minutes/2021/city council/20220912 doec

ACT —ION: MOTION BY MAYOR AVILA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN, FAILED 2-2-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBERS BOGH AND THORP VOTED NO; MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC

HEARING AND GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE

REVISIONS TO THE PLAN AND CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING.

After further discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGH, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER THORP, CARRIED 3-1-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN VOTED NO; MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER ABSENT), TO (1) DENY THE APPEAL REQUEST AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-47 DENYING PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SERRANO ESTATES PROJECT; AND (2) DENY FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20375 (CASE NO. 20-136/FDP/TTM 20375), AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (AS THERE WOULD BE NO PDP); AND (3) ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AS CONTAINED IN THIS AGENDA REPORT; AND (4) FIND THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15061(4) AND 15270 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
None

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be September 26, 2022, at 6:00 PM.

DAVID AVILA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
s

JENNIFER C WFORD

CITY CLERK
City Council Minutes Page 19 of 19
pups://yucaipa.sliarepoint.com/sitcs/gencralsorviccs/sliared documems/general services —city clerki n city clerk f lestminutes S exeerpts/minutes/2022/city councilh_0220912.doex

Agenda Item No.

City of Yucaipa

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of March 15, 2023
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, on March 15, 2023, at 6:30 PM.

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Tony Hicks, Vice Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Stacey Chester, Commissioner
David Higginson, Commissioner
Donna Snodgrass, Commissioner
Lyle Vick, Commissioner
ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner Katrina Kunkle, Assistant City Engineer
Lauren Sanchez, Assistant City Attorney
Madeline Jordan, Associate Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant

CONVENE PLANNING COMMISSION
The meeting was called to order at 6.31 p.m., with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Tony Hicks.

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT: One public comment for items not on the agenda was received. Hansen Wang informed the Commission that the General Plan is good for twenty years, and that changes can be made if they help to improve the City. Mr. Wang noted that he is for development that is done in an appropriate manner.

CONSENT AGENDA
The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. The Planning Commission will act upon them, at one time, without discussion. Any Councilmember or staff member may request removal of an item from the Consent Agenda for discussion.

The title is deemed to be read, and further reading waived on any ordinance listed on the Consent Agenda for second reading and adoption.

Planning Commission Minutes Pane 1
3-15-23 Page 103

1. SUBJECT: Approve Item No. 1, Planning Commission Minutes of March 1, 2023.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Hicks, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 6-0-1-0, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

A. Staff Presentation
B. Applicant/Representative Presentation
C. Public Comments
D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary)
E. Public Hearing Closed
F. Commission Discussion

2. SUBJECT: David Ridge (Case No. 23-026/SUP1ARC): A Special Use Permit for the Architectural Review of a 24.5-foot-tall and 2,400 square foot garage/workshop that has been designed to match the existing home on a single -residential property located at 35648 Sundance Court; APN: 1242-101-17.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a Public Hearing and:

A) Review the architectural design of the proposed oversized structure, and if it is acceptable, approve the design subject to the Conditions of Approval; and B) Adopt the Special Use Permit Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and C) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, Section 15303 (Class 3); and, D) Direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION:

The Planning Commissioners noted they had no ex parte communications to disclose.

Associate Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Report.

The applicant, David Ridge informed the Commissioners that there will be a water closet and sink under the stairwell at the project location_
Public Comments: No comments received.

ACTIG\: MOTION BY Commissioner Vick, SECOND BY Commissioner Snodgrass, CARRIED, 7-0-0-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO- 2_
Planning Commission Minutes Paae
3-15-23 Page 104

3. SUBJECT: Burchco, LLC (Case No. 22-0351CUPIARCIVAR): A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review for the construction of a self -storage facility, including four (4) one-story buildings and 781 individual units, that would yield a total of 122,150 square feet of storage space, as well as a Variance request to allow for a 04ot line along both side property lines (east and west) of the subject site located at 31975 Dunlap Blvd (APN: 0301-121-28), which is similar to the adjacent property with a self -storage land use to the west.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and:

A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit (Case No. 22-035), Variance request, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and B) Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project; and
C) Adopt the Conditional Use Permit as contained in this Agenda Report; and D) Adopt the Variance Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32), of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and F) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION:

The Planning Commissioners noted they had no ex parte communications to disclose.

Associate Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Item.

The applicant, Jay Rentz, informed the Commissioners that he is the owner of the Alpine Storage adjacent to the proposed project and that this site would help with their existing demand. He thanked Associate Planner Madeline Jordan for her efforts on the presentation. Mr. Rentz addressed the hours of operation and lighting concerns that were posed by Chair Allgower.

Commissioner Vick asked the applicant if the current facility has an on -site, 24-hour living manager.

Mr. Rentz noted that there is a 24-hour manager on -site.

Public Comments: No comments received.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Snodgrass, SECOND BY Commissioner Chester, CARRIED, 7-0-0-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Planning Commission Minutes Paae 3
3-15-23 Page 105

4. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC Case No. 22- 1501PDPIFDPiTTM 23075: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)IFiml Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet and averaging over 20,000 square feet, of which 41 of the lots will be age restricted to those over 55, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a combined 12-acre area as part of a "Lot 52" and remainder lot that would include space for vineyards, and 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County. APNs: 0320-161-08, 09, and 28.

RECONBMNDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and if the Planning Commission decides to ultimately support the approval of this proposal, recommend to the City Council that they:

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-03, approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and
B) Approve Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 22- 150lFDPITTM 20375), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
C) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and D) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and, E) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

DISCUSSION:

The following ex parte communications were disclosed:
• Chair Allgower noted he met with a neighbor to the site during the review of 20-136 with the Planning Commission.
• Vice Chair Hicks noted that he also met with that resident with Chair Allgower, and the resident discussed the site plan.
• Commissioner Beck has no disclosures.
• Commissioner Chester noted that she spoke with the applicant's representative regarding the project site, earthquake concerns and minor questions she had regarding the plans. • Commissioner Higginson disclosed he received a call from the applicant's representative the night before the meeting. He informed the applicant's representative that he was still reviewing the agenda and plans, and that any questions he develops will be provided to staff and asked at the Planning Commission Meeting.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
3-15-23 Page 106

• Commissioner Snodgrass noted that she had questions on the staff report, and spoke with the applicant's representative to obtain clarification on a project detail. She also relayed to the developer that she prefers to see a reduction in the number houses, and that she also did not like the monument sign.
• Commissioner Vick disclosed that he spoke with applicant's representative regarding the general overview of the site plan. He noted that he also met with a resident in the North Bench about future commercialization of the area, though that discussion was not specific to the agenda item at hand.

Planning Manager/City Planner Ben Matlock presented the Agenda Item.

Planning Manager/City Planner and Assistant City Attorney Lauren Sanchez answer Commissioner questions regarding the proposed project.

The applicant's representatives, Travis Heaps and Craig Heaps of Premium Land Development, thanked Planning ManagerlCity Planner Ben Matlock for the detailed presentation. Travis Heaps informed the Commission that a homeowner's association will be formed to manage the property and to ensure that the units are being sold to residents of appropriate age requirement are met. Travis Heaps noted that SB9 and ADLU's are available to every single-family property in the city and is intended for individual homeowners. Travis Heaped provided a summary of the history of the site.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Seventy -Eight speaker forms were received in total. Of those, forty speaker forms noted opposition to the Project but that those individuals did not wish to speak. Additionally, four speakers were called to provide testimony, but ultimately did not come up to speak.

1. Melony Martindale - Dewey Ave: She noted that she supports the project. She stated that people will want to live in a growing city and that this proposed project will result in a positive impact for the City of Yucaipa.

2. Dr. Sohn Chavez Sousa - Nice Ave: He informed the Commission that he is the President of the Green Valley Foundation, and expressed that this project is something that will benefit the economic development in the city.

3. Anthony Peralta - 13`r Street: He noted that this project was presented to the Commission last year, and that the concerns from the residents were heard. Their team have made revisions to address those concerns and are trying to get the project approved.

4. Ray Snodgrass - Walnut Grove Court: He informed the Commission that many of the undeveloped properties in the North Bench area are owned by Limited Liability Corporations, Limited Partnerships, or investment groups, and that those vacant parcels will be built in the future. He noted that now is the time to guide future development to protect as much land for open space and agriculture.

5. Ross McGinnis - Azurite Street: He acknowledged that the revised project is heading in the right direction, but still remains opposed to the Project and has concerns with ingress and egress issues.

6. Ryan Agadoni - Fremont Street: He informed the Commission that he is a North Bench resident and loves that area the way it is now, concluding that the proposed project is not the right project for the area.

7. Nmi o Valmassoi - Quartz Street: He expressed his frustration with having to sit quietly and not being able to verbalize their agreement with the opinions being expressed.

Planning Commission Minutes Pa.ze 5
3-15-23 Page 107

8. Teri Boon - Yucaipa Ridge Road: She informed the Commission that if you have a 1-acre parcel, under RL-1 you are allowed to have four livestock animals, whereas that would not be permitted with this Project. She read a letter on behalf of Alan Hillwig stating his opposition to the project.

9. Kevin Miskin - Ivy Street: He recommended that the Commission to reject the plans for the Serrano Estates in its current design, and instead support development that is consistent with the RL-1 and custom home overlay requirements.

10. Robin Miskin - Ivy Street. She requested that the Commission reject this plan. She noted safety concerns in the High Fire Risk Area, and that the development must be consistent with the RL-1 and custom home overlay requirements.

11. Hansen Wang - Quartz Street: He noted that he is not against development and also appreciates that certain things being improved with the current proposal. However, he reiterated his concerns with the number of homes proposed on the project, and asked that this plan be rejected.

12. Colleen Wang - Quartz Street: She noted that if you have cluster housing, you can't have rural living. She informed the Commission that the General Plan has a definite definition of what RL- 1 zoning is, and you can't redefine it. She expressed traffic concerns on Quartz Street. Ms. Wang presented a copy of a Petition to Protect the North Bench from High -Density Development and Preserve the Rural Living Standards and One -Acre Minimum Lot Size with 891 signatures from Yucaipa residents.

13. Russ Caldwell - Ivy Ave: He noted that the applicant is trying to change the land use to fit their project, rather than to change the project to fit the land use standards of RL-1. He asked that the Commission not recommend this project to the City Council.

14. Kathleen Reynolds - Jade Court: She noted that the General Plan was put in place to guide development of the city and that it has been certified by the state. She noted that the revised project does not comply 'min anyway, shape, or form with the RL-1 zoning. She asked that the General Plan be respected.

15. Heather Dent - County Line Rd: She informed the Commission that she felt that the Serrano Estate project is a disaster and had concerns of the high fire area, lack of buses and grocery stores that a senior community would desperately need.

16.Irmgart Mitchell - Colonial Drive: She explained the structure of the City of Yucaipa Organizational Chart, reminding the Commission that they and staff are here to represent the residents in the community.

17. Philip Schneider - Greenbrook Place: He expressed concern regarding a major discrepancy between this project and the General Plan, and that the lot sizes proposed on this project do not meet the minimum requirement of one acre per lot.

18. Brian Bleyenberg - Fremont Street: He noted that the North Bench is a unique place in Southern California and would like to have the Developer come back and present a project with one acre lots.

19. Jan McFarland - Yunis Court. She noted that Yucaipa has a unique culture and lifestyle that would not be maintained with the proposed development. She stated the small lot sizes not accommodate the rural lifestyle which includes large animals and hobbies on private properties.

20. DeEsta West - Norton Ave: She noted concerns regarding the lot sizes proposed and wants to keep the one acre lots.

21. Stephen West - Norton Ave: He noted that he is opposed to the project due to fire concerns and doesn't understand that, even with mitigating factors, a project like this would be approved.

22. Kathy Sellers - Palermo Court: She shared an article she found on the internet about the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance efforts with the city to gain approval of an overlay to support a grape Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
3-15-23 Page 108

growing wine making region. She noted that the Committee intended to aid the national designation somehow ended up with a housing proposal instead, and that the Alliance created a petition to oppose lot size reduction led by Donna Snodgrass. Ms. Sellers asked what had changed.

She stated that residents were excited about protecting the rural environment while embracing just the vineyard development.

23. Joel McCabe - Fir Avenue: He noted that he was one of the 891 signatures obtained in the petition presented tonight. He stated that if the Serrano Estates project is approved, it will change the North Bench and the rural way of life it represents. He expressed concerns regarding the land development and zone changes, and is opposed to the re -zoning on the North Bench.

24. Tony Matlock - Lake Breeze Drive: He noted that he was a member of the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Planning Committee established by the City. He informed the Commission that they tried to put together a plan that would include compromise and would still be able to move forward with it. He noted that he understands that people are afraid of change, but sometimes everyone must work at a compromise, consider all the facts, and make appropriate decisions.

25. Sara Cooper - Pendleton Road: She noted that she researched the Yucaipa General Plan and the Yucaipa General Plan Housing Element. She stated she is a longtime Yucaipa resident and enjoys her walks to local businesses. She noted the conflict she has is with a senior citizen planned community being so far away from Central Yucaipa, parks and related amenities.

26. David Duron - Panorama Drive: (Due to Mr. Duron's case of bronchitis, Teri Boon read a letter on his behalf.) Mr. Duron expressed concern regarding the value of vacant land to the aquifers in Yucaipa. He also noted his concern regarding the recent El Dorado Fire and the thousands of acres of valuable landscape that had burned, which has created ongoing problems with mudslides.

27. Maria Corn - Fremont Street: She noted traffic concerns and stated that she leaves her community about four times a day. She stated that she loves the rural community feeling and the open spaces that the city offers, and is opposed to track developments being built in the North Bench.

28. Cesar Roldan - Pendleton: He addressed Commissioner Higginson's question regarding pesticides and herbicides. He stated that he has been leading the development of vineyards in the community, and that they are currently trying to establish high standards for local vineyards. He noted that a current vineyard that is 8 to 10 years old has not had any herbicides applied to it. He stated that he is working with a community of wine growers, and that if an insect problem develops, they will use organic and natural solutions rather than any harmfitl chemicals to protect both the crops and surrounding environment. He informed the Commission that he is in favor of the project.

29. Matt Underwood - Diamond Sheet: He noted that the revised project is not substantially different from the one that was denied, and that the only key change was the location of the vineyard. He stated that this is not a good project and does not fit in with the surrounding community. He also has traffic, public transportation, and high fire area concerns.

30. Denise Work - Limekiln Drive: She noted she was a Planning Commissioner for twenty years.

She stated the Wine Country Specific Plan has not been approved, and suggested that there is no reason to develop the area with homes and vineyards. She believes in capitalism, and would not have a problem with vineyards in the area, concluding that if there is a market and that the wine sells, that it would be great.

31. Sherry Todd - Quartz Street: She noted she is not opposed to development but is opposed to this development. She stated the project, as proposed, is not an improvement to the area and is therefore opposed.

Planning Commission Minutes Paae
3-15-23 Page 109

32. Joshua Morgan - Fremont Street: (Audio of his message was played with approval from the Chair).

He noted his family moved to the north bench to have a larger lot and open space, and requested the project not be approved.

33. Daniel Morgan - Fremont Street: He stated that developing lots that are less than one acre does not reflect the atmosphere and culture of the North Bench. He noted that the developer wants to develop for profit and that it is not the city's responsibility to approve changes simply based on the desire for a larger profit margin. He asked the Commissioners not to be the leaders that allow the community to dramatically change.

34. Marlin Feenstra - Goldstone Street. He stated that the project is proposing to use the Plan Development Review process instead of adhering to the existing development standards, and requested that the Commission deny the project.

The representative, Craig Heaps noted that the property was purchased in 2014 and that the property owner did what he could with the property at the time. He stated that the applicant met with City Staff and has spent the last 3 years trying to see the project through. He noted the residents simply do not want any development to occur in the North Bench, but that the owner has the right to be able to develop his property. Mr. Heaps informed the Commission that this project is not proposing cluster housing.

Craig Heaps stated that Premium Land Development did not donate to any campaign. He stated that Premium land Development has been doing business in Yucaipa since 2004.

Mr. Heaps noted that what they are doing is legal and the right thing to do with the land. He stated that they presented the best project that they can for that piece of laud. Mr. Heaps noted that this is a 55 and over community not a Senior Care Home, Care Facility or clustered congregate housing.

Commissioner Chester asked the Assistant City Attorney, Lauren Sanchez for SB9 clarification. Assistant City Attorney Lauren Sanchez stated that SB9 applies to the City of Yucaipa but that the developer themselves would not qualify for SB9 splits, nor is it proposed with the current proposal.

Commissioner Hicks asked Assistant City Attorney Lauren Sanchez about splitting adjacent lots (in reference to SB9). Assistant City Attorney Lauren Sanchez informed Commissioner Hicks that an individual cannot split lots that are adjacent to one another, nor can they act in concert with someone else to split an adjacent lot or split the same parcel twice using SB9.

Commissioner Snodgrass asked if a traffic light would be installed on Juniper Street. Assistant City Engineer Katrina Kunkle noted that a traffic light is not conditioned to be installed. The condition is to complete a warrant analysis, and if it meets certain criteria for a traffic signal or stop sign, then they can be installed.

Commissioner Hicks noted that, as a Planning Commissioner, he was asked to be on the AVA Committee.

He recognized that if we guide and support development that is controlled, we can help gain fifty percent of open space on it, whereas we might not be able to in the future. He referenced a discussion he had with the Redlands Conservancy about the general wine country efforts to preserve land that is otherwise permitted for residential development, and that their organization iterated that those types of concessions simply do not typically happen. He is asking for everyone to keep an open mind and try to preserve half Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
3-15-23 Page 110

of the North Bench area. Commissioner Hicks thanked everyone for attending and appreciates the community outpour. He encourages the community to continue to stay involved.

The Public Hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Higginson noted that he listened to the August 2022 Planning Commission and the City Council Appeal Meeting. He noted that both the Planning Commission and City Council previously denied the project and made recommendations to the site layout. He stated that the applicant responded to all those recommendations. He informed the Commissioners that he drove the site, and that he only has some potential concerns with the setbacks between the new homes and the agrarian activities.

Commissioner Chester stated that she drove the site and was surprised with its current condition, including trash and debris hidden in the interior of the parcel. She noted that she used her economic background and used those numbers to help make an informed decision based on facts presented. She noted that this project would allow the streets to be improved and that it would likely increase surrounding home values.

Commissioner Chested stated that this will create a positive economic impact for the City of Yucaipa.

Commissioner Beck thanked the community for attending the meeting.

Commissioner Vick noted that there are quite a few concessions in the General Plan to meet a demand that he feels does not currently exist in Yucaipa. He stated that he is not sure if he supports this development, and would like to see the project further modified and presented in a way it works for everyone.

Commissioner Hicks stated that he appreciates all the Commissioners and the work they all do.

Chair Allgower noted that he has been on the Commission for a while and has seen many projects over the years. He stated that he thinks this is a fairly good project and that this project would make a positive impact for the city.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Snodgrass, SECOND BY Commissioner Chester, CARRIED, 4-3-0-0, TOAPPROVE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.4.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: City Planner Benjamin Matlock thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He informed the Commissioners that he will be attending the Planning Commissioners Academy on March 29, 2023, to March 31, 2023, along with Commissioner Higginson and Commissioner Snodgrass.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting adjourned at 10:48 PM.

Benjamin Matlock JR Allgower
Planning Manager/City Planner Chair of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
3-15-23 Page 111

Benjamin Matlock
From: teri boon
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 7:06 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
In response to the notice of public hearing for Monday, April 17, 2023 1 want to go on record that I am opposed to the proposed Serrano Estates project. All projects in the city of Yucaipa should promote following current general plan recommendations and zoning recommendations.

Teri Boon, MD
GPM Yucaipa Ridge Rd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Sent from my Whone

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Re: PL20220000150 YUCAIPA 52
Attachments: 23.01.18 city notice.tiff
I forgot to include my notice. I don't know if you need that. So I"m attaching here. THanks Patty On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:23 PM Patty
Ben,
Attached are my comments and a couple of maps showing a suggested redesign. I feel it is important to attempt to keep the rural feel of the area. By adjusting the lot widths to a minimum of 125 feet for the 1/2 acre lots, this will be accomplished. Other comments are also noted in the letter.

One of the maps has been overlaid on the proposed project map so that you can see the areas affected.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,
Patty
Patricia Ingram
aatriria rnnram
1

City of Yucaipa
Planning Department
Sent via email
Response to request for comments and suggested map revisions Case Number PL20220000150, Yucaipa 53 LLC
Dear Mr. Matlock,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above project. I appreciate that the developer has attempted to respond to many comments made on the original submission including some of mine. In Particular, Yucaipa Ridge Road right of way, north of quartz Street now has a 40 foot half width as well as a curve at the north end to correspond with the existing roadway.

The applicant has also provided more % acres lots, however, I believe he has missed the general intent of the community and that was to keep a rural atmosphere. Section HN-2.4 of the General Plan Housing Element states "development in the North Bench and Wildwood Canyon to be consistent with the rural character of those areas and ensure that they provide high -quality housing opportunities that leverage the unique setting of those areas."
This area is part of the Custom Home Overlay, which according to General Plan Element HN-3.5, projects require "adherence to housing related regulations." In that Overlay, the minimum lot width regulation is 125 feet. This allows for larger side yard setbacks and at least the feeling of large, rural lots as you drive down the street. As presented the average lot width is about 80 feet which is more consistent with R5 zoning and detracts from the rural atmosphere.

I have attached a plan showing a design concept with this in mind. It utilizes just a slight bit of the vineyard area to keep the same number of lots as proposed with 16 lots at 12,000 sf and 35 lots at 20,000 sf. The Y acre lots with 125' width will allow a driveway beside the house so that the rear yards may be accessed. Those are the types of features that separate RL zoning from RS.

I'm still not convinced that the vineyards should take priority over reaching the 1 acre lot size or at least % acre lot size. The small amount of vineyards proposed are not enough for an independent business and there is no guarantee of their viability or upkeep.

The idea of senior housing as an incentive for smaller lots doesn't really make sense here. if you read the General Plan Special Housing needs regarding seniors, their needs are better met closer to the downtown area where easy access, buses and other conveniences are nearby. The price of housing is also less expensive in this area.

The purpose of the Planned Development process is to make a project better by utilizing variances to the existing zoning. However, there should also be an attempt to conform to the surrounding area and homes. For this reason, I believe it is important to look at a redesign that provides a rural housing atmosphere in conformance with the surrounding area.

Thank you for your anticipated consideration of my comments. I would be happy to discuss them further with the developer or staff as needed.

Patty Ingram

E
3 4
! YUCAIPA RIDGE ROAD
I 23 122
1391 9>8 36 35 4
0 J�
+ 6 41) 33 24
46 t
[l ,
1 ll r t
7 46 4g ;I 32 , 25 1 i 20
1 41,
n r l 31
ti 1 , 50 I j 19
2644
r i
r
51 j
30 27 (
10 12 29 OO18
l
13 14 15 i 16 17
16 LOTS AT 12,000 SF
35 LOTS AT 20,000 SF
1/2 ACRE LOTS HAVE
+/- 125' FRONTAGE
CO INDICATES 12000
S1= LOT

SECTION 'A' YUCAIPA RIDGE ROAD

TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET
I I I jP
I
E�
:t'Iptmf✓.r Y—
I
uatul¢NT
I -
cec !cam
RO�cxG I
I / I is ei uoYccj
4 RL-, SINGLE
i�
FAMI
��
22 Y RESIDENTIAL
�t4a
csc �.,
Ac I
lj
c
I�
s
RL-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
m
VAIN
OEfAiAilvE } m \
I
I Ipl'
L-5S
r,8._
_
..

A0:"
-
�Sa.
0 i0 9E RNOYEU
IE
EDGE R- PAY�.FMNi

LANOSCAPING
\ `_. _
eL
•.---•-
r,e9�A'Sa"w
\
\ _ CAI A
R1
\ V ' 5 '
o a \
\
\ -
q
n
--r -i• —
—_-
2y _'7
—
--
`
1 990
L
1 FP2.
m T — Ac E
pvry R n.r
�� P \\\\
�;: '19
A5 H.1
I l
�...GBGlL4GE Pl.�
NDE.ALAA CNAWEL __ 9 cT
1jlOT B
BASINS
' ChG 6CUNDM=
\` \
I
I
,,Y�q..JI
NA- 1
}�`'j;,'p'
26 50 FTC
2y}1
I+ P01BA�Yr1"EQBL 61H66 1 }"
Aldl 2975
` „"., so #T
J'"gggt0Y1.'�3977.1
j' ��
—
\
t WLl-PURPOg MAIL
/40T.. 3 O I
f�
' 2965
I 2970
97 AC 10' DEMENT 2ie1.9
EASEMENT ':

I SK L
1 � 2960
` J
u , DRM.IAGE EASEMENT
!4, 9E LN AIED I
2975
`
\ �
C4
=
> is
2E6
/1
'"AYIIC
n
�• 51
,I
40 Q
39 24
n
/ /1
23 1
T UNIT m Ggk:):Np
I \\
(
20,070 SO
L PE.2949.3
r•
1,r• 5 2a
F'f -
5 ,O1
-
B
O
.2 y 9So T E
_ •33 — 13

VINEYARD
;—
'
2956.1
_�
25 PE.2995.0
-
5C CRNr is
` I 20.15E SO
PE'-29`5.7
21,9
PE
1 �� --_

SO FT I
0 P-2964.0
13,610
S Fir
,� 11
2 FT 9 1 7 SO FT
E4S4�
1 Ir
T
zf
- 2 PE-2992.9
w j 49
5 _ S PE-
9527 ��
2 I
-
t{
{1 �•
t \
20,163 50
7 l—
3 21,10
r EASLV EN
50 50 FT

99.0 !�
I
TJ.600 SO FT
i_ E-29
- S _ I'-
\
P'
—
z �
4B
I h
"
I�I)I
i 43
I
240
t
Y 4ggO
�
i
\
/
`n 10.PEe 2969.0 27)
—
iu
1 7 21%1E, i96 7FT
o —rr— —
, Q
1 �G• I
U 1L
716
PE '.99
— — 50
301 C.0.`
c�
oo 2 000010.0
I'•'

9.•
�LQ DEA PARCEL
y�
5 � MNEY
Z
z
\ \., 23.910 SO FT
I ` 21 PE�29a : I
1 .o
a I
1�
E_ 377 o5q
0 1
f
rt ¢E-?D17.0
-I—
j
V
ii-200
'nL
n
t
77 II ml
NUITI-PUk' TRAIL
19 OPEN NATURAL SPACE
21 SO FT i r.

I
I
M
::tJJ =
2,9
:pI_ .1614.7 FT
21 6
L2 DDT-3o2e?.D
?
3 i
.�
FS
�i
- I
Nl,u '
j
-
Y _a>EurV�'
PE-
�? 7 ° `
�2,16 LOTS AT 1000 SF
I
`i m
121m so
v,
.1Ja010.8al so FT
FT

20.0001-1
`A / 35 LOTS AT 20,000 SF
a
., 3e - I
E
M1Ln-P.,•2 o5E �A.
\
41 eC 72'RACRE LOTS HAVE
T9>� FT
125' FRONTAGE
I
23 5
ORAL EASE a INDICATES 12000
0Pf]V NATURAL SPACE
\` \
1 I
I
I '�
EA`SEM T
'�' I
b J 50 ,I 8
M
11 2:1 MITN UNDULATING Aopi:s \
I 1
\
U
C
\ 3,763
ORAMAGE EASFAIElIT \
13 50
4,
14 4 SO
1b I
,E92
12 905 m
11 2.9151 ISO
24,
10 P_ 30a20r
50 FT v I
J
I a DRTNNAGE EASEMENT
f
\ ;
\
I
302]
11 PE.303 .tl
PE-]035.OI
5 17E-3Ca2.p
PE
]Ca].0 U I
�(I

MU -PURPOSE TRAIL
Q
2:7
ID
i' T
>
`
rY!9' Sa" 5p N"Yf 1513.G
`�
`
'`9'J' A' VO Op"C ae S.B13'
1 2
UI
p Ui,f ��
$

LOT LINE
P.

RL-1 VACANT
�99 ar PRrwnsEn
001 irtN4•"* .:1 Ynn+ uNDu.AnNc sLOF1S
aw
T•,■:IYnt...,.T,";"°
r,,....,. I�.,��. ;;../% Ilp o 90
too 240

Y o
Y
Y ` ' i�WflZ�<>t l"s t��,7 .�•��'i
.. �.'.
-t.� _ � �,:JS
,r�.
�:w
�.
� � ^A. •gaa.F
�rJ
.. l
J
�
r-

Order No. :66 i46 -A S
Ew Na. 4 ^62
oa '� � M
Loan No REDO AT THE REQUEST OF
FIRST AMERICAN TIME UtSURAPI(.Od. tr
WHEN RE:;JROED MAIL TO IN 0MC WAf1MS
arwt. TAIc urArwcm to RECM YrflLlfiL. WA
MS
and Mrs. Bobby L. Ingram FEB 121981 AT 8 LK
Cal tnesa,lCa. Drive 6'�RA SM BE MMIN� CmRl it ME.

CaZimesa, Ca. 92320 0 fTl i !a'

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: DOCL TA1, TRANSFIER TAX S 22.00 it.. Cotnputad on the eon kiorttion or .*ue or prop" eaxeyad; CA ...... COntpOtad on vit eordUdor'eKon or raiY■ ISO Bern or wncumbrreer rwnWnkv ri trove o1 ula -
d � CI
S fpru rura of t or I AunO�rerm4+It< — Flnn Nar11• t
tl A PA) 3 c2D- L 3 1 - i2te I
f
f+( GRANT DEED
A
�i FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, i \^ F:oyd F. Wad an.i Jerry Ward, husband and wife,
VI hereby ta'.AANT(S) to
Bobby L. Ingram and Elizabeth G. Yngram, husband and wife, as joint tenants, the real propMy in the Cr p:x unincorporated' area in the k County of San Bernardino , State of California. described as found on "EXT[XBrr A" attached hereto and trade a part hereof. rt is arutua2l.y agreed between the parties that the gate at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 4 is to be locked at all times.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA t
COUNTY OF 1
San Bernardino
On January 26, 1981
Moore nw. the u 4a Toned, ■ Notary Publ c -n errd lot Said Swt*, pt't+onatly aprow-d ..-_Floyd F. Hard andd__-.—
Jerry Ward
/ o F. aa:d
Jerry/ and
2 P
-.._.-- -- _ ----- --- - - - - - 'OFFICIAL auu
known to me ro bo the person S whoa nano s - ., aL@..._... _- CONNEE J. McOONALD sutncribed to the rrirnln instrument and acknowledged that NOTARY PUBLIC - CAIIMIMIA f executed SaSAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
d Mms
WITNESS my h .]and ott.cial star. my Commission Expires Jan. 20. 1984 r Sipnanlre � � ITnu era. ror oHidel notariar wli
VVV!!!/// 1002 110/69)
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE page

:^`
'�Ixnrwv All
Pa rc o 1 1
r;r,vvrnment 1.01; 2, s[+.rf io:, I d, 91 wnr hip 1 Tr,A:th k,pngn I N::r , NAn lkrrnarrlirrrr and Meridian, according to c;overnnreut Survey.
rXCr.PTINC therefrom a Strip of land WO fee. t in vi del+, externd i rul ... ross tht- Northe:rn end of said Lor 1, said utrip ut land txiny 1120 fetit in length, nrre or less, extending in an Eastarly and Westerly direction, as .•rinvetled by Doed from Domenico Ntatis to The Edison F.Jt.,crric Co., re -corded in Book 127 of Detvfs, page Sl.

ALSO EXCEPTING therefroo 112 of all oil rights for a period of .rlt years, as contained in the Deed from Nunslo Picarella, recorded July 25, 1947, in Book 206b Of Official Aec"da, page 158.

Parcel 2
together with easements appurtenant to the herein above described property over grantors adjacent lands for Ingress, egress and utility purposes, said easements over a strip of land 30 feet wide, the centerlines of which are described as follows:

ALIGNMENT 1
Commencing at the southwest corner of Section Ifs, Township 1 South, Range I Vest. San Bernardino Base and Meridian, thence N89*34'27"E along the south line of said section to a point distant 49,99 feet from the southwest corner thereof to the true point of beginning of Alignment 1; thence (1) N12°19'; 19.41 feet; thence (2) Ely 195.58 feet (through an angle of 64'02') along a tangent curve concave to the SE, having a radius of 175 feet; thence (3) tangent to said curve N76'21'E 293.58 feet; thence (4) t173'17'E 117 feet; thence (5) N75'54'E 365 feet: thence (6) N73'52'E 721 feet; thence (7) N20'39'E 339,64 feet; thence (8) Nly 173.46 feet (through an angle of 62'07') along a tangent: curve concave to the W, having a radius of 160 feet; thence (9) tangent to said curve N41'28'W

4.58 feet; thence (10) Nly 153.60 feet (through an angle of 30' 309 along a tangent curve concave to the NE, having a radius of 290 feet; thence (11) tangent to said curve N11'18'W 1.12 feet; thence (12) Wty 45.86 feet (through an angle of 65'411) along a tangent curve concave to the SW, having a radius of 40 feet; thence (13) tangent to said curve N76'591W 69.86 feet; thence (14) Nly T11.64 feet (throuqh an angle of 31'59') along a tangent curve concave to the NE', having a radius of 200 feet; thence (i5) tanp;;nt to -said curve N45'00'W 33.54 feZtt; thence (16) NWly 107-63 feet (throuqh an angle of 15*251) alonrl a tangent curve concave to the SE, having a radius of 40o feet; thence (17) tangent to said curve N60'251W 143.04 feet; thence (18) Wly 67.92 feet (through an angle of 31'08') along a tangent curve concave to the S, having a radius of 125 feet; thence (19) tangent to said curve S88'27'W 0.60 feet; thence (20) Nly 148.43 feet (through an angle of 73*571) along a tanryenl curve concave to the NE, having a radius of 115 feet; thence (21) tangent to said curve N17'3f,'W 6,62 feet; thence (22) NWIy 72.87 feet (through an angle of SS' 409 along a tangent curve concave to the 5E, having a radius of 75 feet; thence (23) tanilent to said curve N73'16'W 50.27 fret; thence (24) NWly 32.53 feet (through an angle of 41'07') alonel a tangent curve concave to the HE. having a radius of 115 feet; thence (25) tangent to said curve N32'09'W 1,02 feet; thence (26) NWly 48.00 feet (through an angle of 36*401) along a tan(lent curve concave to the S11, having a radius of 75 feet; thenr:e (27) tangent to said curve N68'49'W 17.56 feet; thence (23) NWly 104.72 feet (through an angle of 30') alonct a tanrlent curve concave to the NE, having a radius of 200 feet; thence (29) tangent u+ said curve N38'49'W 93.05 feet; thence (30) Nly and Ely 130.05 feet (through an angle of 99'21') along a tangent curve concave to the E, having a radius of 75 feet; thence (31) tangent to said curve N60'32'E 84.45 feet; thence (32) Ely 48.24 feet (through an angle of 55'17') ,t10119 a tanflent curve concave to the S, having a radius of 50 feet; thence. (33) tangent tc, said curve S64'II'E 48.72 feet.; thence (34) Ely 39.65 feet (through an angle of 22'43') alonrl a tangent curve concave t- ce
p
C.J
I=

the N, havinq a r.tdius ut 1011 tact; thence (35) tangent try -,aid curve. S86'54'E 151.14 feet. ttae•nc,! (36) Nly 86.20 feet (through an anq le of 75'54' ) ,f Innr.l .a t rn.lent curve f.uncave to the NW. t havinq a radius,al 6, feet; ahency (i7) Iangeot to s.•id crirve N17'07'E 49.84 feet; thence (38) NE:y 126.91 feet (throualh an angle of 41'33') along a (ancient curve concave to the W. having r radius of 175 feet; thence (3.9) t?nclenl to said curve N24'2G'►f

59.61 feet; thence (40) N14'411u 64.70 feet; thence (4t) NNIy 43.60 feet (through an angle of 49'58') along a tanrlent curve concave to the SW, having a radius of 50 feet; thence (47) tangent to said curve N64'33,w 80.22 feet; thence (43) N421y 56.18 feet (through an anqle of 42'55') along a tangent curve concave to the NE, having a radius of 75 feet; thence (44) tangent to said curve N21'44'Y 119.54 feet; thence (45) Nly 77.09 feet (through an angle of 63''06') along a tangent curve concave to the E, having a radius of 70 feet; thence (46) tangent to said curve N41'22'E

23.47 feet; thence (47) NEIy 34.47 feet (through an angle of 26' 209 along a tangent curve concave to the W , having a radius of 75 feet; thence (48) tangent to said curve N15'02'E 69.95 feet; thence (49) NEIy 30.60 feet (through an angle of 38'09 along a tangent curve concave to the SE, having a radius of 45 feet to a Point A; thence (50) Ely 68.87 feet (through an angle of B7'41') along a tangent curve concave to the S, having a radius of 45 feet; thence (51) tangent to said curve S38'19'E 34.26 feet; thence (52) SEIy 64.17 feet (through an angle of 36'46') along a tangent carve concave to the NE, having a radius of 100 feet; thence (53) tangent to said curve S75'05'E 18.52 feet; thence (54) SEIy 117.39 feet (through an angle of 19'13') along a tangent curve concave to the S. having a radius of 350 feet; thence (55) tangent to said curve S55'52'E 145.40 feet; thence (56) Ely 68.90 feet (through an analle of 31'35') along a tangent curve concave to the N, having a radius of 125 feet; thence (57) tangent to said curve S87'27'E 142.83 feet; thence (58) Ely 50.53 feet (through an angle. of 28'57') along a tanqent curve concave to the S, having a radius of 100 feet; thence (59) tangent to said curve S58'30'E 21.98 feet; thence (60) Ely 103.93 feet (through an angle of 59'33') along a tangent curve concave to the N, having a radius of 100 feet; thence (61) tangent to said curve N61'57'E 31.80 feet; thence (62) Nly 115.76 feet (through an angle of 88'26') along a tangent curve concave to the u, having a radius of 75 feet; thence (63) tangent to said curve N26'291l1 126.48 feet; thence (64) NNIy 64.52 feet (through an angle of 18'29') along a tangent curve concave to the SW, having a radius of 200 feet; thence (65) tanryrnt to said curve. N44'58 V 46.06 feet; thence (66) N111y 39.?I feet (through an angle of 12'30') along a tangent curve concave to the WE, having .a radius of 70 feat; thence (67) tangent to said curve N12'28'N 2.18 feet; thence (68) Nly

16.60 feet (through an angle of 25'42') along a tangent curve concave to the E, having a radius of 37 feet to Poinr N which is also the intersection with the north line of Government Lot 3 and termination of Alignment 1, said point cat terminus beinq S89'56' 28"E and205.40 feet distant front the NE corner of Government Lot 3.

ALIGNMENT 2
Commencing at aforesaid Point 8; and thence;
j1 78.24 feet along said north line to the true
the Alignment 2; thence (70) S42-16'E 73.10
S50'31'E 50.62 feet to the intersection with
Government Lot 3 and termination of Alirynrnent
of terminus bein) S00'42'49"F and 86.38 feel
WE corner of Government Lot 3.
(69) NS9'5b'28"E
Ix�int of berlinning of
feet; thence (71)
the east line of
2, said point
distdnt from the
2 F""tt
*;
�w
)
Page
121

AL 1 GN �ENT
B
fe:glnning at afor/saN Point A (as described in AIIgnm:fit 1.). ' and thence (72) N54"00'E 4.D1 feet; thence (73) 66.10 feet (through an angle of 126'15') along a tangent curve concave to the sir, having a radius of 30 feet; thence (74) tangent to Bald curve N72'15'N 147.46 feet to a point on the north line of Government Lot 3; and thence (75) S89'56'28"W 335.98 feet to the east 1/4 corner of Section 18, Townstip I South, Range West, San Bernardino (lase and Meridian which !s the termination of Alignment 3; and which is N00'25'08"N and 2642.16 feet distant from the point of Con ncewwnt.

Parcel 1
Grantor further grants a three -sixteenths (3/16) interest in that certain well located 585"48'491N and 12.j.26 feet distant from the NE corner of Government Lot 3, Section 18, Township I South, Range I West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian to- gether with an easement appurtenant to the herein above described well for the pur- pose of maintaining said well and placing waterlines, the centerline of which is described as follows:

Commencing at the WE corner of Government Lot 3, Section 18, Township�I South. Range I Nest, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; thence S89'56 28't1 85 feet; thence S00"03'32"E 10 feet to the true point of beginning; thence 589'56'28"N 70 feet Ec. the termination; thence N00"03'32"11 10 feet; thence N89'56128"E 155 feet to the point of commencement.

Grantor reserves a 30 foot. right of entry over Government Lot 2 for the exclusive use of grantor for as iong as access is required personally by grantor, the centerline of which Is described as follows:

Commencing at the WE corner of Government Lot 3, Section 18. Township I South, Range 1 hest, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; thence 589'56'28'V 165.40 feet to the true point of beginning; thence Ely 80.40 feet (through an angle of 124'30') ainng a curve concave to the S, having a radius of 37 feet, and from which a radial bearing from the true point of beginning to the radius point 576'46'E; . thence tangent to said curve S42'101 22.07 feet to the termination; thence N89'56'28"E 87.16feet to the point of commencement.

Grantee shall be. responsible for his proportionate share of power based on water used_
Grantee shall be responsible for 3/16 of all repairs and mainlenance to wale: well site including pump and other equipment used in the water system.

Grantee agrees tc- pay his proportionate share of waterline installations servinq Government Lot 2, Section 18, T.IS, R.IN., San Bernardino Base and Meridian.

Grantee agrxs to pay power, repai and other bills related to said well within 10 days of their presentation.

Grantee shall be absolved of all the above costs regarding said well until such time as Grantee connects to anti uses water from said well, unless acceptance of such costs Is agreed to in advance in writing.

As a covenant running with the well site, grantor agrees that any future conveyance of any Interest in the well site shall be subject to the atwve conditions.

END OF DOCUMENT
4 •
rd

9 W
AND WHEN AKCONDLO MAIL THIS DEED AND. UNLESS
OTHERWISE GROWN DELOW MAIL YAK aTATEMENTS TO,
NArcr
B.L. Ingram and Elizabeth G.

Ingram
Auem a
366 Sandlewood
G'^r• Calimeaa, CA. 92320
VATIE
Title Order No .................._ ......... Escrow No ........ 101...._.... nraunvl+V 110 _• • -- V
00 MAY 9 1983 AT � .

SAN BERNAROINU C4UNT'�,

4.000
G
Grant Deed
This: spot* for Recorders use
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) b6.00
DOCLIZAENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $
L-uninco rat r 0 City of_.

Parcel No.�^
06mputed on full value of property conveyed, or
D computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, FLOYD F. WARD AND JERRY WARD, husband and wife
hereby CRANT(S)to B.L. INGRAM AND ELIZABETH G. INGRAM, husband and wife as joint tenants
the following described real property in the tMIf%tbr00Mted afel county of San Bernardino , stale of California:

The Northwest one -quarter of Government Lot 3, aaid lot being in the West half of Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to Government Survey.

Together with easement for ingress, egress and utility purposes as set forth as Attachment "A" attached hereto.

Dated.__April 20, 1983

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF San Bernardino ss.

On April 28, 1983 before me.
the undersigned, a Notayr Public in and for said Count and Stale, personally appeared Floyd F. Ward and Jerry
Ward
Y4 personally known to me;
0 proved to me on the batis of satisfactory evidence,
whose name are tubscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged gat they executed the same,
Signature
Kathleen Diane Nelson
Nomc (Typed or Printed)
Notary Public in and for said County and State
rlttNAirt�lrr
O�t1GItL �
IUTIA.EEN WMdE Ft1E].Sbff
e+DtMY WItJQ � Cl1t!ft0lrMf,
+ r� � IRrNCAslI DI/ILy IM
tAff OlfgIt4I1C>ili017s0{I1(1�
CIIIl11l�MIM � f11� ii, lll�

FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP

property over grantors adjacent lands for ingress, egress and utility purposes, said easements over a strip of land 40 feet wide. the centerlines of which are described as follow so Alianment A
Aon0 foot wide easement apportenant over that certain easement cveyed by instrument #81-031120 of the Official Records of San Bernardino County.

Alignment B
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 18, Township 1 Sou�h, Range 1 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridians thence N70 23'50"E 1175.97 feet to toe true point of beginning; thence N790091E 129 feet; hence S89 291E 69 feet; Shence S89 20'E 86 Pet; thence N67 251E 89 geet; thence N48 171E*. 70 feet; thence N11 181W 46 feett t�ence N23 59'W 98 feetj thence N37°42'W 27 feet; t ence N62 24'W 30 feet; thence N74 58'W 163 feet] thence N32 47'W 74 feet; to the termination of alignment B; thence S5?°58'W 1456.19 feet to the point of commencement.

Alignment C
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 18, 'township 1 South, Range 1 West. San Bernardino Base and Meridians thence North 1775.28 feett thence East 587.69 feet to the tFue point of beginnings thence N17 a7'E 49.84 feets thence N16 30'W 123 feet; thence N54 05'W 71.41 feet to the termination of alignment Ci thence South 1982.73; thence West 509.59 feet to the point of commencement.

Grantor further grants a one-fourth (,) interest in that certain well located S85 48'49"W and 129.26 feet distant from the NE corner of Government Lot 3, Section 18, Township 1 South* Range 1 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian.

W
CAD
W

CITYOr YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 17 2023

PR OJ ECU NOTICE
DATE; lrutuars M, 26 ',
CASE. NUMBER. III1(t22ti0WI 50
PROPOSAL: t'a.r '1,1 22-19r plll'; 11111' 1 I),I 21074 •t planned 1)rvek+prWill pmlcct th:d 'twialli-, ;I Vi-clinunary !)cvc',tpnrcnt Man and rcut.wN, Iract flap tt"ITi 20175rhntal D,.vclopnlrul 1'!r111 lc,r 111e pwil"sed Scnam, ISIAWS ItrEileel. tt•hreh ssdl cst.ihhsil $I MVIOC hnmti) RcsldtnU.tl ktt. it ith is resrdeutial AIS on parecli 20,ral0 iqunrc feet or rre.ttcr. ;aid It, age-rcilncicd lot; t„ gttalil} utg irnlnrs on Irat greatcr than Il.WW spree iee1. atr Ahainal oultihered At ON hir %;Tivyards abut Y1,,;aipe Rultic Road, a rrnl,wider 1:1t lot vineyards and +;.itglal upon Npare, and We 1elIM lub Q aspen seam ant" ANCJ1 MI w"M . PIC Ise nnlcihat thin 0 am, dilied piall"Sal liunawe M; 1".16
LO('.11 ON: 1 hrre par,:'cis iotthrtc. S2 acres on the :•;tit ii,Jc of Yuc.tipn Ridsc Rti,i 1, woth of the City !rims VIN. nt?rLl I. RAI',: D t,: !t'(;tl 11 s+
I,(t'i NIIItAI i l:•t latl`15' At avj' 14`111 It rnARiN6 -%IItil l iNI Pftur'f•:A! y'ttt %W '%`61'41 1+> tlAta rtostt•:P+It INWR1 INI, i r, lt,tii i}; c. IMAI Aril \RI till.! lr,!\1'lUNNyi:0.'ItS1: I,Y .l I;:1N:AillY cc Alkiundia; Nrnpett! (veers 1'acmp,+Ya1k) Win I) Mci
Fire L7epnitalcnl 9glum mg 1)ivismi
liutklilg X.• \aims Dr. :,ion

C11*Y 0F YLJCA1PA PLANNING DiVISION RECEIVED JAN 17 2023

PROJECT NOTICE
DA IF", lartnarn 04. 'U.'.i
C:ASh. NI1:li11?k: 111 ;'tt 2WIjl1; �n
AP III, WAN'1: )i ticstipa 52, I.IA
PH Of, OS,lI,: I. .o,:c hrt, 22-lit) pl)1!'1:[)P i P%,I 20,175 '1 I'lunrlell I?rrr(alsIllefit (tmtt:et 111,1 rnrlutiv., a flicliflujuny I)ctr!.spntell I Plan ;Hill fcntauve I1-Iwt NIttp il'11.1 20.775F(hual I?eveivprrlcnl Has litr thc wposed Senum. tot men I' qw. aluch isM e"alsllsh `;I Qgo !%nu(y Rc;tdent:.tILL tvrth 15 t. stdent:al OHM !I ,in pitr:elt 0.finO ttill :He test ,r gremcr, and i(% a• c-retlit,:tcd I,trs r,> 41tmfii tilt, sen,nrn +,n b�l, gr;!atcr Iliars i. ONI rtluarc icct, an addaum.11 nunl enni 49 14N i " vutC:}nnl:, :il,mg Yucalpu Rulge h:u;:tl. a rcnrlindcr Its1 Itsr k•Irlc4aid,-; mid flatnidl vpcn ,hurt, am! ilircv Wend i,,b 161 upon spec and 110culrun h;I%mi 1'1^ssys uule 111,1t lhl.. 1s .t rr.,nlili,:d (Irtsprssal Itvtnt'asc vii ISl• i 3(t

1.111CA'1'1ON: I Is ice parcel, Itstaflny 5' acre•; on the cast it, Iv of Yue;iipa Itidcte RilIHI. N,ItIII n(III C City fill III %I-N• W?ILIAI.r)ti Ind rtr't,
AI"1-f-xi IU.N 1111011,In-1' Cm SI-1tS AND 1kFVI11F1.11; AGENC'Ih.S: Ilse dcI(-Inp)ltrrit 1,1;:11ialit h+lad ahcrvu has been tilt, '.t'ttb we S'll+ Pllutnusp L)at+,;,n On urc nitited it ct,tunenl isc::ausc y'nur Prtxpert}' :, lieu! the (slupn,cd protect Vow curwrxat, nia,.t hr recc:, ed bg lhb „like no Wiser !hurl Jai up M fi" (ollim•nk r4cetved title{ ihm slate nylt not he tuuanlcrad at the dummu Plewc m1cr u, Mn pn,leet 4 the .1pp(icalli't anntc and rase nlursbcr Indicated :lhuve I; tiokl have rill coa,rin•(Ii. no reply I; nc•.cssarti. IFyou have tin) tttic; wris rca alllmg thin prnpo•sal. p`t'a;c ,:natal, llenpmm MntlnA a t`KM ?+T"-fU%t:;;. NI foil all} %call cuter couaneut+ lu dtc 1'I} W 'i uyu PArinnir lhrsssnn. 11272 Yacai(s:t Eksuitrs:ud, Yisc:upa. CA of cl's 1' Is 1 it, t')U'li
I., i t+u xAtit I,, I?v not dial t, I she p tolcci ducts :,"s. pr mr t•u ur n an In alra lhr ,till in gI IN im Ibis M nn a" rwA N I Is Ow idle- ah-vi Any %kh a sclS•:ultlrr:sed. ;h,nsred clackyo A 0 dt•I:rs4m; am auh;w Iv an ,I{spe'11 prriu4+11!cnillltCdt:udard;n nllrrat mwn t bit
('(iN1.111'.NP,III ; III fi,tc•IirltlItIona Iipacc.p!-t,ra{ia�:h 0,11i111nalpa;tt`;+ YJ
w 1 11 0 M', With
�'�,1i�l:�c•1°_...___.,._.__.-,----__... J
Pmvr NANI►~..1 r:�..i{�1�tku..N1�ys'�� ,1!)()NI:C'i
'I111,1 C'1IA111:NMiI AN, M C'II)N )IFI AKt'04; I :If ;tPOVI. PA1.114'At. !"NI)'iIItIS1 f+`'."!!;YI 1t{SON11[Y?.7 hill NAIT !IIr:Lflrll'1UN0 ! IVI'+!tiN %I liitl'Itlili, it, rill it\::. It
I III:. PIM110SAL 'I lrt; III:. Si t! R i" ELSE NH It tL1':! ICAiWD "it -A. ':,fill J A I I tin vi ni n• (!,RIikSPtiti[11 4r't id 1 It.'i:F1:1'' !' • i III II{ AItti•Xi W j(It A1, i)±.I'ktl.i'r: 1'ts, fife i1liAfiltiii I)t: ! r t 1\I[ t nrr,:l fr•\I':i ..ttil1 1111 Yi htVO ill r'i'ii`1T?1S N'iti111`.c; i [,titVr iNAI I1'Sl t-%HIN'i. ! 1!.If FE ti 1 ltiC1 flint. 11A'i 111 I''I-•I1111rs40!c;vl ll•lII1.f1I'4S AI AN`I, KUHN MAIRIWAMCI imsprimr.^-u Y" hms wim ir1tiL\u Vl%T"s\tMPQKi`ilkn{1N fil,tW i;t- IHAI i'+it' Utt %11A, WEXPRIAS )'(d'RSI-I.l-A aitp:.sItI) rr tiurmutstltrig Hope, Ctts'nera Yucnya l'a11e5 isvoler i)isma lie Qlattrt ml Nigi ivel-ing 1)ivnit"i
fhilichny �' tialety i)iv:•,mn
Page .126

January 18, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division kDCi=1VEC
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case #PL20220000150 C.i T
01=
To Whom It May Concern,
We are current homeowners on Yucaipa Ridge Road writing in regards to the Serrano Estates project, case number PL20220000150. The letter is to request that the City Of Yucaipa DENY this,plan.

When we purchased our home on Yucaipa Ridge Road in 2017 we were very careful to do our research on the empty lot across the street. We visited the City of Yucaipa and checked the zoning and confirmed that it was Rural/Residential with a 1 home 1 acre and a custom home overlay. The neighbors told us of a proposal of 32 custom homes on 1 acre lots. While of course we would have loved to keep the open space, we figured that new 1 acre homesites with custom homes would be good for our property values.

The original Serrano Estate proposal and the new modified proposal for tract homes on small lots seem like a joke, but sadly the original proposal was only rejected by the Planning Commission by one vote. I would really like to know why the Developer of this property has such confidence in submitting a plan that the does not meet any of the requirements in the General Plan? We know there is some bending of the language that he believes allows him to build 52 homes, but that seems like an an incredible act of subterfuge. The addition of vineyards and "open space" on Undevelopable Land is a further attempt to obscure the fact that this proposal is unfit for the area.

We have been residents of Yucaipa for 21 years. We raised our children here. We shop here, dine here, attend community events and recently relocated our business here. It saddens us that we have had to write letters, attend meetings, and join protest groups in an effort to make the City of Yucaipa put the needs of hundreds of its current residents over the financial gain of one landowner and one developer.

Sincerely,
Brian and Amy Swanston